Three rulings that changed how the Act reads in 2026

This lesson is dense, and it is meant to be. By the end of it you should be able to say in your own words what each ruling did to the Act. You will see each ruling cited many times across the rest of the course. Get the holdings right once, and the rest of the course gets easier.

Ruling 1. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (12 May 2023)

Citation. Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014. Bench of Justices A. S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli.

Background. Goa University constituted an Internal Committee against a Head of Department, Mr. Aureliano Fernandes, after multiple students complained. The IC conducted the inquiry ex parte after he repeatedly missed hearings citing medical grounds, found him guilty, and recommended termination. The Bombay High Court reversed on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court, while resolving the individual case, used the opportunity to flag systemic failure of POSH enforcement across the country, ten years after the Act [L4-C1].

What the Court said. The Court recorded "serious lapses" in implementation. It then issued a set of directions running across the country.

• The Union, every State, and every Union Territory must audit whether all government departments, organisations, agencies, public sector undertakings and institutions have constituted Internal Committees or Local Committees as required by the Act.
• The composition of each IC, LC and ICC must be verified against Section 4 (for ICs) or Sections 6 and 7 (for LCs).
• The names, email IDs and contact numbers of IC and LC members, the procedure for filing complaints, and the relevant rules and internal policies must be displayed on the website of the concerned authority and updated.
• The National Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authorities must develop training modules for IC and LC members and run awareness programmes for employers and employees.

What it changed for practitioners. Before 2023, the question "is your IC properly constituted" was answered by the employer's HR team and usually never tested. After Aureliano Fernandes, that question is being tested by audits, by court orders in subsequent cases, and by external counsel before any high-stakes inquiry begins. Module 4 builds the constitution checklist directly off this ruling.

Ruling 2. Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (12 September 2025)

Citation. 2025 INSC 1106.

Background. The complainant alleged sexual harassment incidents beginning in 2019, with the last specific act in April 2023. She filed a formal complaint in December 2023, around eight months after the last alleged incident. She sought to anchor the complaint by arguing that subsequent adverse administrative actions by the respondent amounted to a continuing wrong. The Local Committee held the complaint barred under Section 9. The matter reached the Supreme Court [L4-C2].

What the Court said. Two holdings.

1. Section 9 limitation is strict. Three months from the date of the last incident, extendable by a maximum of three more months, only on reasons recorded in writing by the IC or LC. A complaint filed beyond the three plus three window cannot be entertained.
2. The Direct Nexus Test. If a complainant tries to bring later administrative actions within the limitation window by arguing continuing wrong, the Committee must apply a direct nexus test. There must be a direct link between the later administrative action and an overt act of sexual harassment. Vague allegations of victimisation in service matters do not convert a stale complaint into a continuing wrong.

What it changed for practitioners. Before September 2025, IC practice on limitation was inconsistent. Some Committees took a generous view of "continuing wrong" and admitted complaints filed years after the last incident. After Vaneeta Patnaik, that is not safe. Every IC should now apply the Direct Nexus Test on the threshold question at first hearing and record reasons. Module 6 walks through how to do that.

Ruling 3. Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India (10 December 2025)

Citation. 2025 INSC 1415.

Background. Both parties were Central Government officers. The complainant was an IAS officer in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. The respondent was an IRS officer in the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The alleged incident occurred at the complainant's workplace at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, on the 15th of May, 2023. The complainant filed her complaint with the IC of her own department. The respondent challenged the IC's jurisdiction on the ground that he was not employed by the complainant's department [L4-C3].

What the Court said. Three holdings.

1. An aggrieved woman has the right to approach the Internal Committee constituted at her own workplace under Section 4, even if the respondent works in a different department or organisation. She does not need to approach the IC of the respondent's department.
2. The protective scheme of the Act, read with Section 9, requires the Act to be interpreted in a manner that gives the aggrieved woman convenient and safe access to a redressal forum. Forcing her to approach the respondent's IC would defeat that object.
3. The Court reiterated the wide reading of "workplace" under Section 2(o). The workplace includes physical premises, virtual workspaces, places visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment (including transportation provided by the employer), client sites and field locations.

What it changed for practitioners. Two big consequences.

• For ICs at large employers, the question "do we have jurisdiction when the respondent is a vendor employee, a contractor, a client employee, or an employee of a different group company" used to be answered by service rules and often resulted in jurisdictional dead ends. After Sohail Malik, the complainant's own IC takes the inquiry. The disciplinary consequence (if any) is then routed to the respondent's employer to action under their service rules.
• For the "workplace" question, every IC now has to be ready to take complaints arising from off-site events, virtual offices, video meetings, client locations, and transportation provided by the employer. Module 3 covers the practical application.

How to remember the three

One way to memorise the three rulings is to map each one to the section it has effectively rewritten.

Two of these three rulings are from the second half of 2025. There is more to come. The Act is now a live area of jurisprudence, not a fixed text. Practitioners should subscribe to a credible Supreme Court tracker and re-read the case-law layer at least once a quarter.