Sexual Harassment or Workplace Misconduct? Understanding the Boundaries of the POSH Framework

Authored by Vishaka S

Workplaces are not always harmonious environments. Disagreements, uncomfortable interactions, personality clashes and allegations of inappropriate conduct are part of organisational life. While employers are expected to address such situations, not every instance of unpleasant or objectionable workplace behaviour necessarily constitutes sexual harassment.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) provides a specialised mechanism to address sexual harassment at the workplace. However, the existence of this mechanism does not make the Internal Committee (IC) a forum for adjudicating every workplace grievance. Equally important is recognising the limits of its mandate and understanding how conduct falling outside the POSH framework should be addressed.

Distinguishing Sexual Harassment from Workplace Misconduct

Consider a situation where an employee repeatedly interrupts a colleague during meetings, makes disparaging remarks about her work or behaves inappropriately towards her. In another instance, an employee records colleagues without their consent, alleging that their conversations are disrupting the workplace.

Such conduct may warrant the employer’s attention. However, does it necessarily amount to sexual harassment?

The answer depends on the nature and circumstances of the conduct. The POSH Act is concerned with conduct falling within the statutory definition of sexual harassment. Workplace disagreements, general misconduct, professional conflicts and objectionable behaviour do not automatically fall within its scope merely because the persons involved are of different genders.

This distinction is important because treating every workplace grievance as a POSH complaint can dilute the purpose of the legislation and place the IC in the position of a general grievance redressal or disciplinary authority.

The Internal Committee Is Not a Disciplinary Authority

The IC is constituted to receive and inquire into complaints of sexual harassment in accordance with the POSH Act. Its powers and responsibilities must therefore be exercised within the statutory framework.

This distinction was highlighted by the Bombay High Court in Dr. Mohinder Kumar v. The Chairman, NABARD Head Office & Anr. (2026). The case involved a male employee who had recorded videos of women colleagues, claiming that their conversations and conduct were disturbing the workplace. The women employees complained that they were being recorded without their consent and expressed apprehension about the possible misuse of the recordings.

The Complaints Committee found that the allegations did not establish sexual harassment. However, it also considered the recording objectionable and recommended that suitable action be taken against the employee under the organisation’s service rules.

The Bombay High Court held that once the Committee had concluded that sexual harassment was not established, it could not proceed to recommend disciplinary action for conduct falling outside its statutory mandate. The Court also set aside the employer’s reprimand of the employee, noting that it had been imposed solely on the basis of the Committee’s recommendation, without an independent inquiry or application of mind.

The judgment reinforces an important principle- the IC cannot assume the role of a disciplinary authority merely because conduct examined during a POSH inquiry may be objectionable on other grounds.

What Happens When Conduct Falls Outside the POSH Framework?

Recognising that a complaint does not establish sexual harassment should not mean that all other workplace concerns must be disregarded.

For instance, an employee recording colleagues without their consent may raise concerns under the organisation’s privacy, confidentiality or workplace conduct policies. Similarly, bullying, intimidation, insubordination or repeated professional misconduct may warrant intervention under the employer’s disciplinary framework.

The appropriate course is for the employer to address such conduct independently, under the applicable policies, service rules or disciplinary procedures. The employer must apply its mind to the facts and provide the employee with the procedural safeguards applicable to the proposed action.

In other words, the conclusion of a POSH inquiry does not necessarily grant an employee immunity from action for unrelated misconduct. It only means that the POSH mechanism cannot be used to impose consequences for matters outside its statutory remit.

The Importance of Procedural Fairness

The need to maintain clear boundaries must go hand in hand with procedural fairness. A POSH inquiry can have serious professional and reputational consequences for the parties involved. Accordingly, the process must be fair, impartial and consistent with the principles of natural justice.

In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of procedural safeguards in sexual-harassment inquiries, including providing the respondent a reasonable opportunity to know and answer the allegations.

Similarly, in Anup Vikal v. State of Maharashtra (2026), the Bombay High Court considered the statutory consequences of an IC rejecting a complaint at the threshold. The decision highlights that even a decision declining to proceed with a complaint must be understood within the framework of the POSH Act and cannot be insulated from the statutory remedies available to the parties.

These decisions, read alongside the NABARD judgment, underline the importance of an IC exercising its authority strictly within the statutory framework, while ensuring fairness in the process.

Drawing the Line

The effectiveness of the POSH framework depends not only on the IC’s ability to address sexual harassment but also on its ability to recognise the limits of its jurisdiction. An IC should neither trivialise complaints of sexual harassment nor expand its mandate to adjudicate every form of workplace misconduct.

Employers, in turn, must ensure that their internal mechanisms are clearly distinguished. POSH complaints must be addressed through the statutory process, while other workplace grievances and disciplinary issues should be dealt with through the appropriate organisational channels.

Ultimately, a robust POSH framework is not one that addresses every form of workplace misconduct, but one that effectively addresses sexual harassment while respecting the boundaries of its statutory mandate.