State Human Rights Commission Can't Entertain Complaints Against Private Employers Over Workplace Harassment: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC) has no jurisdiction under  Protection of Human Rights Act to entertain complaints alleging workplace harassment against a private company, as its jurisdiction is confined to human rights violation by "public servants" or negligence by them in prevention.

The Court clarified that while allegations of workplace harassment may warrant legal redress, they must be pursued before the forum recognised by law and not before the Human Rights Commission.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:

"The jurisdiction of the Commission must be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and cannot be expanded merely on account of the gravity of the allegations... Even if the allegations are assumed to be correct... the seriousness or nature of the allegations cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Commission where none exists under the statute."

Explaining the statutory limits on the Commission's powers, the Bench further held:

"In the absence of any statutory provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Commission to inquire into alleged violations of human rights committed by private individuals or private entities, the Commission cannot assume such jurisdiction merely because the allegations disclose issues touching upon life, liberty, equality or dignity. However serious or grave the allegations against a private individual may be, the remedy would lie before the forum recognised by law having jurisdiction over such disputes, and not before the State Human Rights Commission unless the jurisdictional requirements prescribed under the Act are satisfied."

The writ petitions were filed by Wells Fargo International Solutions Private Limited challenging a common order of the Telangana State Human Rights Commission rejecting its preliminary objection to the maintainability of two complaints filed by a former employee. The Commission had held that since the complaints concerned allegations of harassment of a woman employee affecting her dignity and equality, they involved human rights violations and were therefore maintainable despite arising from an employment relationship.

According to the company, the employee had joined its services in 2011 and, after successive promotions, lodged an internal complaint in July 2019 alleging workplace harassment by two colleagues and expressing dissatisfaction with her performance appraisal. The Human Resources Department conducted an inquiry but found the allegations unsubstantiated. Thereafter, the company's Employee Relations Department independently investigated the allegations, interviewed the complainant and several witnesses, and similarly concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated. Even before the second inquiry concluded, the employee approached the Telangana State Human Rights Commission by filing two complaints alleging violation of her human rights.

Before the High Court, the company argued that Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act authorises the Commission to inquire only into complaints alleging violation of human rights by a public servant or negligence by a public servant in preventing such violation. Since both the company and its employees were private persons and not public servants, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. It also relied upon decisions of the Madras High Court and an earlier judgment of the Telangana High Court holding that Human Rights Commissions cannot adjudicate disputes arising out of private employment relationships.

The Commission and the employee contended that the complaints were not ordinary service disputes but involved continuous workplace harassment resulting in violation of the employee's dignity, equality and mental well-being. The employee further alleged that sustained workplace harassment had caused severe emotional distress, ultimately leading to a miscarriage, and argued that such allegations squarely involved violations of her fundamental rights under Article 21. They urged the Court to adopt a liberal interpretation of the Protection of Human Rights Act consistent with its beneficial object.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court undertook a detailed examination of Sections 2 and 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It held that a plain reading of Section 12(a) makes it clear that the Commission's jurisdiction is triggered only where the complaint alleges violation of human rights, abetment thereof, or negligence in preventing such violation by a public servant. The expression "public servant", the Court noted, is specifically defined by reference to the Penal Code, leaving no scope for expanding the category of persons against whom the Commission may exercise jurisdiction.

The Bench also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India, reiterating that the Human Rights Commission, being a creature of statute, has no inherent or plenary jurisdiction and must function strictly within the limits prescribed by the Act. It further observed that the Commission's own Procedure Regulations define a complaint as one alleging violation of human rights "by a public servant" and even the statutory forms contemplate notices being issued only to public authorities.

The Court held that the Commission had erred in distinguishing an earlier Telangana High Court decision merely because the present case involved allegations of harassment rather than service benefits. It observed that the nature or gravity of the allegations cannot determine jurisdiction; the decisive question is whether the statutory jurisdictional requirements are satisfied. Since the complaints neither alleged violation of human rights by a public servant nor negligence by any public servant in preventing such violation, the Commission could not assume jurisdiction.

Addressing the employee's allegation that workplace harassment had caused her miscarriage, the Court clarified that it was expressing no opinion on the truthfulness of that allegation. It held that the issue involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and medical opinion. However, even assuming the allegation to be correct for the purpose of examining jurisdiction, the seriousness of the allegation could not enlarge the Commission's statutory powers.

The Bench further observed that if the employee was aggrieved by the alleged workplace harassment, it remained open to her to pursue remedies available under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or any other remedy recognised by law. Those remedies, however, could not confer jurisdiction upon the Human Rights Commission where the statute itself did not.

Holding that the Commission had acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, the High Court quashed the common order dated October 14, 2025 passed by the Telangana State Human Rights Commission and consequently quashed H.R.C. Nos. 822 and 823 of 2020. It clarified that the employee would remain at liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law before the appropriate forum.

Case Title: Wells Fargo International Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Anr.

Case Nos.: W.P. Nos. 36488 and 36486 of 2025

Appearance: A. Venkatesh, Senior Counsel, representing Pasham Mohith, for the petitioner; R.S. Vilasita, representing A. Samir Kumar Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Human Rights Commission, for Respondent No. 1; and Ch. Sujatha for Respondent No. 2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order