Sanjay Mishra vs bank of Baroda: Facts of the case
A complaint of sexual harassment was filed against an employee who was posted in a different state from the complainant, both working with the same bank. Following this, the bank’s chief management, through a subordinate employee, filed a petition seeking to quash the charge sheet that had been issued to the accused by the disciplinary authority.
While adjudicating the matter, the court took the opportunity to expand the interpretation of what constitutes a “workplace” in the context of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, 2013, particularly in relation to online or virtual harassment. The judgment recognised the evolving nature of workplaces and acknowledged that digital communication has blurred the boundaries of traditional office spaces.
The court observed that:
“In the present digital world, the workplace for employees working in the bank and who may have worked in the same branch of the bank and later on shifted to different branches will be treated as one workplace on a digital platform regardless of the employees being situated in different branches or States.”
This interpretation was significant. It reaffirmed that harassment need not occur within the same physical office to fall under the purview of workplace harassment. In today’s interconnected environment, especially with the widespread adoption of remote and hybrid work — harassment through digital means (emails, video calls, messages, or social media) is still actionable under the PoSH Act.
The court also noted that with the shift towards work-from-home models, employees, especially women, are increasingly vulnerable to online forms of sexual harassment. This includes inappropriate comments during video meetings, unsolicited messages, or the misuse of digital communication channels for suggestive or intimidating behaviour. The ruling reinforced that such misconduct is not exempt from legal scrutiny simply because it occurs through virtual platforms rather than physical spaces.
Saurabh Kumar Mallick vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India: Facts of the case
In another landmark case, Saurabh Kumar Mallick vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the court delved deeper into how technology interacts with workplace sexual harassment. It examined how the boundaries of a workplace extend beyond traditional office premises.
The court illustrated this point by offering an example:
“While it is becoming possible for CEOs to run their offices from their residences, if a person were to indulge in an act of sexual harassment with another employee, it would not be open for him to claim that the act did not occur at the workplace merely because it took place at his residence.”
This statement was crucial. It rejected the notion that the term workplace can be confined to a single physical location. The court asserted that the definition of “workplace” must evolve with the realities of modern employment, where digital connectivity and flexible work arrangements have dissolved traditional boundaries.
The judgment further emphasised that it is impractical to define “workplace” in a rigid or straightjacket manner, as each case would depend on its unique facts and circumstances. What matters most is whether the alleged act has a nexus to the professional environment — whether it occurred within a space or context where work-related interactions take place.
This case set an important precedent: technology-enabled harassment (emails, messages, or online meetings) falls well within the scope of workplace harassment under the PoSH Act, provided the interaction arises from or relates to a professional context.
How can the IC apply this while investigating cases?
For Internal Committees (ICs), these rulings provide critical guidance on interpreting complaints in the digital era. The courts’ interpretations make it clear that the IC should adopt a broad and inclusive understanding of what constitutes a workplace and avoid a narrow reading of the term.
When investigating a complaint, the IC should:
Acknowledge digital workspaces as legitimate workplaces.
Any virtual platform — including video calls, emails, chat groups, or collaborative tools — where professional communication occurs can be treated as part of the workplace under the PoSH Act.
Examine the use of technology as a medium for harassment.
The IC must assess whether digital tools were used to commit or facilitate the act of harassment. This can include inappropriate text messages, video call interactions, or any online communication that made the complainant uncomfortable.
Evaluate the context and relationship between the parties.
Even if the complainant and respondent are in different locations or departments, if their professional roles or communication overlap, it can be construed as workplace interaction.
Avoid rigid definitions of workplace boundaries.
The court has clearly advised against a “straightjacket” interpretation. Instead, ICs must assess the facts and circumstances — focusing on the impact of the act and its connection to work, not merely the location where it occurred.
Ensure confidentiality and sensitivity in digital inquiries.
Given that many virtual complaints involve screenshots, messages, or recordings, ICs should handle digital evidence with confidentiality and ensure that both parties are given a fair hearing.
The court’s observations remind ICs that the core intent of the PoSH Act is to ensure a safe and dignified work environment for women — regardless of whether the workplace is physical, virtual, or hybrid. What matters most is the impact on the complainant’s sense of safety and dignity while performing her professional duties.
Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc to strengthen your compliance laws no matter where you work.