7 Recent Court Cases Where Indian Courts Sided with Men, Ruling "It’s Not Sexual Harassment"

While the POSH Act serves as a vital shield for women in the Indian workplace, the judiciary has recently established a significant boundary: these laws are not intended to be used as tools for settling professional scores or policing linguistic morality.

Indian High Courts have increasingly clarified the legal thresholds of workplace misconduct. Recent precedents establish that vulgar language lacking sexual intent, routine professional reprimands, and consensual relationships do not automatically amount to sexual harassment under the PoSH Act or criminal law. Distinguishing between professional friction and genuine harassment is critical for fair workplace adjudication.

Below are the legal nuances from seven landmark cases (2024–2026) where courts ruled that the conduct, though perhaps distasteful, did not meet the legal threshold for harassment.

1. Staring at the Chest is Not Voyeurism

(Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar v. The State of Maharashtra (Decided on 8 April 2026)

Facts: An employee filed an FIR for voyeurism (Section 354-C IPC) alleging that her colleague avoided eye contact and instead stared at her chest during office and client meetings. Prior to the criminal complaint, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) had conducted an inquiry into these allegations and exonerated the applicant.

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR, clarifying that Section 354-C is a specific provision for voyeurism. The statute requires a man to watch or capture a woman's image while she is engaged in a "private act"- defined as a situation where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as using a lavatory or being in a state of undress. The Court held that an office meeting is not a private setting and the allegations did not involve a "private act" as defined by law. The Court stated that while unwanted staring might be considered "misconduct, indecency, or some other wrong," it does not fit the "narrow mould" of Section 354-C. It emphasised that "unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism"

2. Cuss Words in Professional Disputes

(Abhikshek Shah vs State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-36953-2019 (Decided on 18.04.2026).

Facts: The petitioner, a company Director, used the phrase "f*** off" in an email exchange with a Business Manager who had applied for medical leave during a critical organisational event. The complainant resigned and filed an FIR under Section 354-A (Sexual Harassment) four months later, following a legal notice regarding a breach of her employment contract.

In this case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the FIR, ruling that while the remark was "undeniably uncouth and discourteous," it carried no sexual overtone or insinuation directed at the sexuality of the complainant.

The court held that a solitary abusive remark in a work-related interaction, without a pattern of sexual intent, fails to meet the threshold of criminal culpability for gender-based harassment

3. Profanity in Heated Disputes

(Sivakumar vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 000677/2020 (Decided: 06.04.2026).

Facts: During a violent boundary dispute between relatives, the accused allegedly used the word "bastard". He was initially convicted for "obscene acts and songs" under Section 294(b) of the IPC.

The Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction, stating that the use of such a word is not sufficient to arouse "prurient interest". The Court observed that in the modern era, such words are frequently used during heated conversations and, while distasteful or improper, they do not constitute legal obscenity unless they arouse sexual and lustful thoughts.

4. Long-Term Consensual Relationships

(Rajesh v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8076 (Decided: 16.12.2025).

Facts: A lecturer was dismissed following an ex-student's complaint that he forced a physical relationship during her Masters program. However, evidence revealed a consensual physical relationship that continued for three years after she graduated, including a "symbolic marriage". The complaint was only filed years later after the lecturer got engaged to someone else.

The Allahabad High Court ruled this was not a case of sexual harassment but a consensual relationship. While the lecturer may have failed to maintain a high standard of morality, the court found his removal "shockingly disproportionate," emphasising that morality must be judged considering the subsequent consensual conduct of the parties.

5. Evaluating Sexual Intent in Unprofessional Remarks

(Vinod Narayan Kachave v. The Presiding Officer (ICC) and Anr, Writ Petition No. 17230 of 2024 (Decided: 18.03.2025).

Facts: An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found a petitioner guilty of harassment for telling a colleague, "you must be using JCB to manage your hair," and for making a sexual remark about a male employee's "machine" in her presence.

The Bombay High Court set aside the findings, noting that it was difficult to believe the hair comment was made with sexual intent. Crucially, the court looked at post-incident WhatsApp messages which showed a cordial and professional relationship until the woman resigned, casting serious doubt on whether she was actually offended at the time

6. The "Sweety" and "Baby" Coast Guard Judgment

Calcutta High Court Judgement (Decided on 10.05.2024).

Facts: A female officer accused her senior of harassment, including calling her terms of endearment like "sweety" and "baby". The senior officer admitted to using the terms but claimed he stopped immediately once she expressed discomfort.

The Calcutta High Court upheld his exoneration, noting that such terms are common in some social circles and not always "sexually coloured". The court emphasised that because the officer stopped the conduct upon confrontation, the "unwanted" element required for a harassment finding was removed. The court warned against "reverse bias", stating that undue protection for unfounded claims could impede the professional advancement of capable women.

7. Physical Contact in Workplace Altercations

(Shanta Kumar vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research, (Delhi High Court) (Decided: 31.10.2017).

Facts: A female scientist alleged sexual harassment after a male colleague entered her lab, stopped her machine, and held her arm to push her out during a heated professional dispute.

The Delhi High Court ruled that physical contact must be "sexually determined behaviour" to constitute harassment. Because this contact occurred during a fit of anger over laboratory use and lacked any sexual orientation or undertone, it was classified as a "workplace altercation" rather than sexual harassment.

Conclusion

As observed by Reetika Gupta, many Internal Committees (ICs) today adopt an overly conservative approach, often siding with the complainant simply to "play safe" and avoid organisational risk. However, the recent jurisprudence from India's highest courts serves as a critical reminder that the role of an IC is to be an objective adjudicator, not a default supporter.

The Calcutta High Court has specifically cautioned against this trend, noting that providing "undue protection" to complainants without sufficient evidence creates a "reverse bias" against men. This bias doesn't just harm the accused; it ironically impedes the professional advancement of capable women by creating an environment of unnecessary friction and obstacles in the workplace.

For ICs in any organisation, these seven cases establish a clear framework for distinguishing between actual harassment and other forms of conduct. Ultimately, an IC must ensure that its findings are not "vague in nature" or based on a "state of denial" regarding the evidence, as the Bombay High Court has pointed out that such perversity in reports will not hold up under judicial review. By noting these precedents, ICs can move away from a "play safe" mentality and toward a balanced, fair process that protects the integrity of the workplace for everyone.

Is Your Internal Committee Equipped for Nuanced Cases? Grey areas in PoSH complaints can expose your organisation to severe legal and reputational risks. Ensure your IC can confidently differentiate between workplace friction and actual harassment.

👉 [Empower Your Committee with Expert PoSH Training]