POSH Jurisdiction ends where the Workplace Ends.
- LexPOSH Team
- 14 hours ago
- 2 min read
The June 2026 Bombay High Court ruling in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.) draws a sharp, non-negotiable line between corporate governance and public criminal law. It serves as a vital reminder for Internal Committees (ICs): an organization's IC is not a public court of equity, nor is it a roaming disciplinary committee for society at large.
When an absolute stranger accuses an employee of an organization, the IC must step back and examine its fundamental statutory boundaries before taking any action.
1. The Jurisdictional Illusion
It is a common pitfall for an IC to believe that because the respondent is an employee, the organization has an immediate duty to investigate any allegation of sexual harassment against them. This case dispels that illusion.
The High Court established that the POSH Act strictly tethers an IC's authority to the concept of the workplace.
The Transit Rule: Under Section 2(o)(v), a commute only counts as a workplace if the employer provides the transport.
The Reality Check: In a shared public autorickshaw, train, or public space, an interaction between an employee and a stranger has zero organizational nexus. The employer does not own the space, did not mandate the journey together, and cannot control the environment. Therefore, it is legally impossible for a "workplace" to exist between them.
2. Why the IC Must Step Aside
When a dispute occurs between an employee and a member of the public outside of work, the matter falls squarely under public criminal law, not corporate policy.
Lack of Fact-Finding Infrastructure: An IC is built to look at internal organizational dynamics, interview colleagues, and review workplace evidence. It has no mechanism, authority, or right to investigate private citizens or strangers in a public setting.
The Correct Remedy: As seen in this judgment, the appropriate legal forum for a stranger complainant is the police station and the criminal courts (e.g., filing a complaint under public criminal law).
3. The Procedural Mandate: Jurisdiction First
The most critical takeaway from Recent Judgement is the strict procedural sequence it imposes on ICs.
An IC cannot accept a complaint from a stranger, conduct a full inquiry into the merits of the harassment, and then decide at the end whether it happened at a workplace. The Court ruled that the IC must decide the jurisdictional question first. If the incident did not occur within a statutory workplace, the IC lacks the legal authority to even open an inquiry, and the complaint must be rejected at the threshold.
The Bottom Line: An organization can hold an employee accountable for general public misconduct under its internal Service Rules or Code of Conduct, but it cannot use the machinery of the POSH Act or the Internal Committee to adjudicate disputes between its employees and the general public.
