“Society as whole benefits immeasurably from a climate in which all persons, regardless of race or gender, may have the opportunity to earn respect, responsibility, advancement and remuneration based on ability.” -Sandra Day O’Connor, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
The judiciary serves as the guardian of constitutional morality, interpreting and applying laws in a manner that reflects the evolving fabric of society. While the legislature drafts the laws and the executive enforces them, the judiciary ensures that these laws are implemented in the spirit of equity, justice, and good conscience. Over the years, Indian courts have played an instrumental role in broadening the scope of rights and protections available under various legislations, and one such example is the landmark Calcutta High Court judgment in Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee v. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College & Ors., which re-examined the contours of the PoSH Act, 2013.
The Legal definition of sexual harassment
The Court emphasised that the meaning of “sexual harassment” under Section 2(n) cannot remain static. Instead, it must be understood in light of changing social realities and the evolving understanding of gender and sexuality.
By doing so, the Court moved away from a rigid binary framework and recognised that gender-neutral interpretations of sexual harassment are essential to ensure comprehensive workplace safety. The Court acknowledged that India’s societal and constitutional progress demands inclusivity, especially when the issue concerns dignity and respect at the workplace.
Implications for Internal Committees
This judgment carries far-reaching implications for Internal Committees (ICs) constituted under the PoSH Act.
- Same-Gender Complaints Are Maintainable
Internal Committees must now recognise that a woman can also be a respondent in a complaint made by another woman. This reinforces the principle that harassment is not defined by gender but by conduct and context.
- Gender Neutrality Still Under Debate
While the judgment allows same-gender cases to be covered under the Act, it does not yet extend protection to male or non-binary complainants. The law, as it stands, still uses the phrase “sexual harassment of women at the workplace.”
Hence, while the respondent’s gender may now be fluid, the complainant’s gender continues to be restricted to women under the current framework.
- The Need for Clarity in Policies
Organisations that have adopted gender-neutral PoSH policies must tread carefully. Although internal policies may be inclusive, they cannot legally override the statutory provisions of the Act. ICs should therefore document same-gender complaints under the PoSH framework but also flag limitations when the complainant is not a woman.
Future judicial interpretations will be crucial in determining whether men, trans, and non-binary persons can also seek redress under PoSH or whether a separate legal framework will evolve
Broader Significance: A Step Toward Inclusive Workplaces
The Calcutta High Court’s interpretation aligns with the constitutional ethos of equality and the Supreme Court’s progressive jurisprudence on gender rights, including the recognition of privacy, autonomy, and sexual orientation as fundamental rights.
This shift also signals a gradual move toward gender-neutral workplace safety frameworks, mirroring international standards and the lived experiences of employees in diverse work environments. It invites organisations to rethink training, awareness, and prevention strategies, focusing on behavioural accountability rather than gender assumptions.
Takeaways for organisations and ICC members
Recognise same-gender complaints as valid under PoSH when both parties are women.
Update internal training and communication to include examples of same-gender misconduct and unconscious bias.
Be mindful of inclusivity gaps — especially for men and gender-diverse employees — and document them for future policy review.
Maintain procedural fairness for all parties, focusing on conduct, not gender identity.
Stay updated with future judgments, as gender neutrality under PoSH will continue to evolve through judicial interpretation.
Conclusion
The Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee judgment marks a crucial turning point in India’s workplace safety landscape. By recognising same-gender sexual harassment complaints, the judiciary has reaffirmed that dignity and respect at work are universal entitlements, not privileges tied to gender.
While the PoSH Act remains woman-centric in its current form, this decision represents a meaningful stride toward a more inclusive, equitable, and empathetic understanding of workplace justice. It underscores that the true spirit of the law lies not merely in compliance but in its capacity to evolve with society.
We at Serein offer gender-neutral policies and train the employees in it. Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc