What constitutes a ‘workplace’ under POSH Act?

A High Court judgment delivered on June 16, 2026 set aside the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) against an employee of the State Bank of In...

What Happened

A High Court judgment delivered on June 16, 2026 set aside the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) against an employee of the State Bank of India.
The court ruled that the incident in question occurred during official travel or transit — not at a location that qualifies as a "workplace" under the definition in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The ruling raises a significant interpretive question: how broadly should "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act be construed when incidents occur during official travel, commutes, or movement between work-related locations?
The judgment contrasts with the general direction of recent Supreme Court rulings, which have emphasised that the POSH Act's workplace definition is broad and intended to cover contexts visited in the course of employment.
Legal practitioners and women's rights advocates are flagging the judgment as potentially creating a gap in POSH Act protection for employees who travel for work or are in transit on official duty.

Static Topic Bridges

POSH Act, 2013 — Overview and Legislative Background

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to give statutory effect to the Supreme Court's guidelines on sexual harassment in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) judgment. It came into force on December 9, 2013.

Full name: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Ministry: Ministry of Women and Child Development
Came into force: December 9, 2013
Legislative predecessor: Vishaka Guidelines (1997) — court-made guidelines pending legislative action
Applies to: All workplaces in India — organised and unorganised sectors, public and private
Threshold: Organisations with 10 or more employees must constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
Under 10 employees: Complaints go to the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) constituted by the District Officer

Connection to this news: The High Court's judgment directly turns on the interpretation of "workplace" as defined in the Act. The legislature's definition under Section 2(o) is the statutory text in dispute.

Section 2(o) — Definition of "Workplace"

Section 2(o) of the POSH Act defines "workplace" expansively to include not just the primary place of employment but a range of associated locations and circumstances.

Section 2(o) defines workplace to include: (i) any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit; (ii) places visited by the employee during the course of employment — including transportation provided by the employer; (iii) any dwelling place or a house
The definition is intentionally broad to cover field work, official travel, client visits, and other employment-related settings
Key interpretive question (from this case): Does an incident during transit between official locations — without employer-provided transport — fall within "workplace"?
The Supreme Court has consistently held the definition should be read purposively to protect working women across all work-related contexts

Connection to this news: The High Court's ruling in the SBI case reads the transit/travel situation as falling outside Section 2(o)'s coverage — a narrowing interpretation that creates potential exclusions for large categories of travelling employees (field officers, bank officials, government employees on official tours).

Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) — Composition and Jurisdiction

The ICC is the primary grievance redressal mechanism under the POSH Act for organisations meeting the 10-employee threshold. Its composition and powers are specified in Sections 4 and 11.

Section 4: Constitution of ICC
ICC must include: (a) a Presiding Officer — a woman employed at a senior level; (b) at least two members from among employees (preferably with social work background or legal knowledge); (c) one external member from an NGO or body committed to women's causes, or a person familiar with sexual harassment issues
Minimum composition: 4 members, of whom at least half must be women
Section 11: ICC inquiry powers — can call witnesses, examine documents, and make findings; the word "where" in Section 11(1) refers to circumstances/situations, not physical location
ICC's jurisdiction is generally limited to complaints involving its own employees — cross-departmental jurisdiction has been addressed in later Supreme Court rulings

Connection to this news: The SBI ICC's findings were set aside not on procedural grounds but because the High Court ruled the incident's location was outside the Act's definition of "workplace." This challenges ICC jurisdiction in travel/transit scenarios and has implications for how ICCs frame their inquiry terms of reference.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — Constitutional and Historical Context

The Vishaka judgment by the Supreme Court of India is the foundational case that created legally binding guidelines on sexual harassment at work, filling a legislative vacuum that existed for 16 years until the POSH Act was enacted.

Case: Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: August 13, 1997
Constitutional basis: Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution
Outcome: Court laid down "Vishaka Guidelines" — binding interim measures pending legislation; defined sexual harassment, mandated complaints committees
Replaced by: POSH Act, 2013 (Vishaka Guidelines became statutory when POSH Act came into force)

Connection to this news: Vishaka's constitutional grounding in Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 21 (dignity and right to life) implies that protections against sexual harassment at work are fundamental rights-adjacent. High Court readings that narrow "workplace" coverage risk creating constitutional inconsistency with Vishaka's broad intent.

Recent Supreme Court Directions on POSH Act Implementation

The Supreme Court has in recent years issued multiple directions strengthening POSH Act compliance, signalling a purposive, broad-coverage interpretation of the Act.

The Supreme Court has held that Section 11(1)'s reference to "where" relates to circumstances/situations, not a physical location — expanding the functional reach of ICC inquiry
Landmark 2025 ruling: An aggrieved woman's ICC can investigate respondents from other departments — confirming cross-functional jurisdiction
Supreme Court has mandated compliance surveys across sectors and directed that ICC composition must strictly meet statutory requirements
Court has consistently emphasised that modern workplaces involve travel, official trips, and virtual interactions — all falling within protective coverage

Connection to this news: The High Court's June 2026 ruling runs against the Supreme Court's broad-coverage approach. It is likely to be appealed, and the question of "workplace" in official transit situations may eventually be settled by the Supreme Court definitively.

Key Facts & Data

POSH Act full name: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Date of enforcement: December 9, 2013
Predecessor: Vishaka Guidelines (Supreme Court, 1997)
Constitutional basis for Vishaka: Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21
Section 2(n): Definition of "sexual harassment"
Section 2(o): Definition of "workplace" — includes places visited during the course of employment, employer-provided transportation, dwelling places
Section 4: Composition of ICC — minimum 4 members, at least 50% women, one external NGO member
Section 11: ICC's inquiry powers and procedures
ICC threshold: Organisations with 10 or more employees
Organisations with fewer than 10 employees: Local Complaints Committee (LCC) under the District Officer
Ministry responsible: Ministry of Women and Child Development
High Court judgment: June 16, 2026 — set aside ICC findings in SBI employee case on grounds of "workplace" definition
Central interpretive dispute: Whether official travel/transit qualifies as "workplace" under Section 2(o) when employer transport is not involved