When does an Internal Committee (IC) have jurisdiction under the PoSH Act?

A recent Bombay High Court judgment in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors. has clarified an important aspect of the PoSH Act that every IC member should understand.

The case:
Two employees travelling to work in a shared autorickshaw (not arranged by either employer) were involved in an alleged incident of sexual harassment. The complaint was taken up by the employer’s Internal Committee, which found the respondent guilty and recommended disciplinary action.
However, the Bombay High Court set aside the IC’s decision.

Why?
The Court held that the IC did not have jurisdiction because the alleged incident did not occur at a “workplace” as defined under Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act.
A key takeaway from the judgment:
✔️ Employer-provided transportation is considered part of the workplace under Section 2(o)(v).
❌ Privately arranged or public transport used for commuting—even if employees are travelling to work—is not automatically a workplace under the Act.
The Court also emphasised that an IC must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before commencing an inquiry. If the alleged incident falls outside the statutory definition of a workplace, the IC cannot proceed under the PoSH Act.
This judgment is a timely reminder that effective IC functioning requires not only sensitivity and fairness but also a strong understanding of procedural and jurisdictional requirements.

Question for discussion:
Do you think the current definition of “workplace” under the PoSH Act should be expanded to cover public transport or private commuting when employees are travelling to and from work? Why or why not?