Pinky Bhansali
A recent Delhi High Court judgment says digital interactions on WhatsApp and Facebook fall within the definition of workplace under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) Act. This ruling expands the scope of workplace harassment to virtual spaces, affirming that professional relationships extend to online communication channels. Pinky Bhansali, a seasoned cybercrime specialist with two decades of experience, discusses the recent judgment.
Q1. How does Delhi High Court’s interpretation of WhatsApp and Facebook as part of the workplace redefine it under the POSH Act?
The internal complaints committee (ICC) has held that “interaction on social media was an extension of the work relationship between the petitioner and complainant No. 1 because the petitioner was not a ‘personal friend’ of complainant No. 1”.
The situs from where the messages were sent has been obliterated by extending and substituting it with the context of the messages and the professional relationship existing between the parties at the time.
The high court held that in a modern professional environment, digital platforms may serve as an extension of the traditional workplace, particularly since such platforms are used for work-related communication.
This is a pragmatic view, as the harassment caused/experienced can occur both by an overt act of the propounder and also on the mental stress caused due to the unethical content sent via digital apps.
In this context the definition of workplace has been suitably extended to cover not only the letter but also the spirit of the POSH Act, which is to prevent sexual harassment of women.
By deferring to the ICC’s interpretation in this context, the court ensured that the intent and protective purpose of the act were not defeated by a narrow reading of “workplace”.
Q2. What new responsibilities does this place on employers and institutions where professional interactions often move into social media spaces?
The complaints were filed and analysed on the foundation that the harassment should have occurred within the precincts of the workplace, and any harassment caused beyond this boundary may not attract the provisions of POSH. The present interpretation of workspace shall prevent and avoid the harassment caused to an employee at any place other than the precincts of office space qua the digital space.
The employer is required to communicate and inform employees that such an extension of the definition of workplace is not only to prevent harassment but also enlighten all on their rights. This communication will grant justice to those concerned and restrain recurrence of such harassment beyond the physical workspace.
The employer/institution is obligated with this responsibility.
Q3. How should ICCs approach evidence from private messaging apps, especially with questions of authenticity?
ICCs must adopt a balanced and sensitive approach when evaluating evidence from private messaging apps. Screenshots may be admissible, but ICCs should assess their authenticity, context and continuity.
Where messages are deleted, the complainant or respondent may be asked to provide device access or backup data, with the caveat that privacy rights are respected.
ICCs should not apply strict rules of evidence but rely on principles of natural justice, as POSH inquiries are civil and fact-finding in nature. They may also consider corroborative material — like call logs, email records, or witness testimony.
Given the ease of manipulation, ICCs should remain cautious, documenting their reasoning and expert input if necessary, focusing on whether the communication, taken in context, supports or refutes the allegations of workplace sexual harassment.
Q4. Does this judgment blur the boundary between personal and professional spaces, or as a necessary step in recognising modern workplace realities?
With the advancement of technology, the communication extends to beyond office boundaries, and it is unrealistic to confine the term harassment under the POSH Act to physical boundaries of the workplace.
The concept of work-from-home and hybrid models, and communication among employees on digital platforms can occur from myriad places, which falls under the concept of workplace.
The court has held that there is a world beyond the physical workspace and communication in this world is via the digital space. Harassment, too, has assumed different dimensions and can be caused, not only by physical acts and orally communicated proposals, but it can happen by content being sent on digital platforms.
Rather than blurring boundaries, it is a necessary step in recognising modern workplace realities and ensuring that the protection granted under the POSH Act evolves.
