Founded by Managing Partner K.P. Sreejith, INDIALAW began as a small firm in Mumbai with a commitment to client service and corporate-focused legal solutions. From its modest beginnings, the firm has grown into a respected name by prioritizing excellence, integrity, and tailored legal strategies. INDIALAW’s team believes in adapting to each client’s unique needs, ensuring that solutions align with individual circumstances and business goals.
The firm combines its deep understanding of the local business landscape with experience across multiple jurisdictions, enabling clients to navigate complex legal environments effectively. INDIALAW emphasizes proactive service, anticipating client needs and potential challenges to provide timely, high-quality legal support. The firm values lasting client relationships and sees its role as a trusted advisor, dedicated to delivering business-friendly and principled legal counsel.
The Bombay High Court examines whether incidents of workplace sexual harassment occurring during an employee's commute on public transport fall within the jurisdiction of the POSH Act. This landmark judgment in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India addresses the critical question of what constitutes a 'workplace' under India's sexual harassment prevention framework.
within Law Department Performance, Real Estate and Construction and International Law topic(s)
In this episode of Podcast Bites powered by IndiaLaw LLP, host Pranjal Maheshwari discusses the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India and Others, pronounced on 16 June 2026.
The judgment examines an important jurisdictional issue under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: whether an alleged incident in a shared public autorickshaw, while travelling to work, can be treated as an incident at the “workplace” for the purpose of an Internal Committee inquiry.
The Court held that public transport independently used by an employee for commuting does not automatically fall within the definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act, particularly where the transportation is not provided by the employer. This episode explains the facts, the statutory framework, the petitioner’s challenge, the Court’s reasoning, and why the judgment is significant for employers, employees, Internal Committees, and POSH compliance professionals.
This discussion focuses on the jurisdictional limits of Internal Committees under the POSH Act, while also clarifying that the Court did not decide the merits of the underlying allegation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
