From the Editor’s Desk
About the Author
Psychologist, Subject Matter Expert at eLearnPOSH.com
Maya Sreenivasan brings hands-on experience in workplace compliance, specializing in the POSH Act, 2013 and Industrial Psychology. With over 7 years of experience in advising organisations on POSH policies and training Internal Committees, she plays a critical role in shaping the content and legal accuracy of eLearnPOSH.com’s training programs.
When Law Expands Faster Than Systems
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India has widened the interpretative scope of the POSH Act. The Court clarified that an aggrieved woman may file a complaint before the Internal Committee (IC) of her own workplace, even if the respondent is employed elsewhere. The intent is clear – accessibility should not be defeated by procedural barriers. POSH is a social welfare legislation, and redress must be practical and humane.
That intent deserves respect.
However, organisations must also examine the implementation challenges this interpretation creates.
Section 11 of the POSH Act provides procedural clarity. It states that an inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the service rules applicable to the respondent, where such rules exist; and in their absence, in the manner prescribed under the Act and Rules. In other words, the inquiry process is closely linked to the respondent’s employment framework.
This raises important questions in cross-organisational cases. If the complainant’s IC conducts the inquiry, how does it ensure alignment with service rules it does not possess? How does it assess proportionality of recommendations without knowing the respondent’s disciplinary matrix? How does it secure attendance and compliance when the respondent is not under its administrative control?
Even after findings are recorded, disciplinary authority rests with the respondent’s employer. The IC may recommend action, but implementation depends on another organisation’s governance structure.
Judicial interpretations can evolve. Organisational policy, however, requires stability. Until there is legislative amendment formally structuring cross-organisational inquiries, it may be prudent to adhere closely to the statutory framework – ensuring that inquiries
align with Section 11 and that disciplinary action remains anchored in the respondent’s service rules.
Empathy is essential. So is procedural certainty.
FAQs on Internal Committee
POSH Case Law Highlights
1. Does All Secret Recording of Women Employees Amount to Sexual Harassment under POSH?
A recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Dr. Mohinder Kumar versus the Chairman and Another has clarified this important question.
In this case, the petitioner, a senior bank employee, noticed that some women colleagues were gathering in the morning, talking loudly, laughing,
giggling and spending time gossiping at the workplace, which according to him disturbed his work. He first raised this issue through multiple formal office notes to management. When no action was taken, he recorded three short videos on his mobile phone and shared them with the Chief General Manager as evidence of the disturbance.
After conducting an inquiry, the Complaints Committee held that mere video recording did not fall within the definition of sexual harassment under the POSH Act.
During the inquiry, the complainants categorically admitted that they were only recorded while chatting in groups, that none of them were individually recorded, and that the videos were not used for blackmail or for demanding sexual favours. On this basis, the Committee recorded a finding that there was no element of sexual harassment, and that the videos were recorded only as proof of the alleged gossip at the workplace.
The Committee further observed that the conduct would have amounted to sexual harassment only if the women were recorded in a compromising position, engaged in a private act, or if the videos were used to demand sexual favours.
Despite these findings, the Committee still recommended disciplinary action, and the petitioner was issued a reprimand by the bank.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court. Relying on Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, the Court held that once the Internal Committee concludes that the allegation of sexual harassment is not proved, it must recommend that no action is required. The Court ruled that the Committee had exceeded its jurisdiction by recommending disciplinary action, and accordingly, the reprimand was quashed.
Note: In this case, it was clearly established that the videos recorded by the respondent were only to demonstrate that the alleged loud gossiping by women in the office was disturbing his work, and there was no sexual intent behind the recording. Hence, it was held not to constitute sexual harassment under POSH.
However, this does not give anyone a license to record women in the workplace or outside with sexual intent or in a manner that invades their privacy without consent. If such conduct occurs, it is punishable under Sections 354C (Voyeurism) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which are now Sections 77 and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
2. Employer Retains Right to Disciplinary Action Even After POSH Conciliation Settlement
In a significant ruling in the case of Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS, the Guwahati High Court clarified that an employer’s power to initiate disciplinary proceedings is not automatically barred just because a POSH complaint was resolved through conciliation.
The case involved a sexual harassment complaint filed by a woman officer against a senior official of the Airports Authority of India.
During the proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee, both parties agreed to resolve the matter through conciliation under Section 10(4) of the POSH Act. This provision means that once conciliation is recorded, the Committee cannot conduct any further inquiry.
The complainant chose not to pursue a full inquiry mainly because the process was causing her mental distress. At the same time, the IC recorded in its order that there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegations, an observation to which the complainant later objected.
After conciliation, the complainant submitted additional material in the form of a screenshot of an objectionable message allegedly sent by the employee. The IC refused to reopen the inquiry, stating that Section 10(4) barred any further proceedings before the Committee.
However, the employer initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the new material. A Single Judge initially quashed these proceedings.
Court’s Observation
further inquiry after conciliation. It does not take away the employer’s independent right to act under its own service rules. In other words, even though the POSH proceedings before the IC had ended due to conciliation, the employer could still examine the employee’s conduct separately through a departmental inquiry, especially when new evidence had come to light.
The Bench held that treating Section 10(4) as a blanket ban on all disciplinary action would defeat the very purpose of ensuring safe workplaces.
Accordingly, the Court clarified that while conciliation brings POSH proceedings before the ICC to a close, it does not give the employee blanket immunity from any other action by the employer. If the employer finds separate grounds under its service rules, it can still proceed with disciplinary action.
3. When Harassment Occurs Outside Work: What Should the IC Do?
‘A’ invited six of her office colleagues to her home for her birthday party. The group consisted of three male and three female colleagues from the same workplace. The gathering was purely social and outside working hours.
During the party, one male and one female colleague got into an ugly argument. The argument escalated, the male colleague pushed the female colleague, and she pushed him back in response.
Option A –Reject the complaint as it was a one of personal incident outside the workplace.
Option B- Accept the complaint if the conduct continues in the workplace and creates a hostile work environment.
Option C- Advise the complainant to approach police or appropriate law enforcement for the incident at home.
Option D- Proceed with a full POSH inquiry merely because both parties are employees.
Recommended Approach – Option C or Option B
A physical altercation at a purely personal, social gathering outside working hours does not, by itself, create a workplace nexus under the POSH Act. Treating every private dispute between colleagues as a POSH complaint would improperly expand the IC’s jurisdiction. Therefore, advising the complainant to approach the police or appropriate law enforcement for the home incident makes Option C correct and not Option A and D.
However, the IC should not close the matter in an absolute manner. If the conduct spills over into the workplace the next day, for instance through taunting, bullying, rumour mongering, or creating a hostile work environment, the behaviour then acquires a clear work connection. In that situation, the IC should entertain a fresh complaint and proceed under POSH, which makes Option B also correct.
In essence, the birthday party incident alone lies outside POSH, but any continuation of the behaviour at the workplace brings the matter back within IC jurisdiction.
Guest Article
About the Author
Reema Rajawat is a seasoned HR and Training professional with over three decades of experience across Telecom, Retail, Healthcare, Hospitality, and Automobile sectors
She holds an MBA in HR & Marketing and certifications in POSH, DISC, Thomas Profiling, and Situational Leadership. Reema specializes in behavioural skills, leadership development, sales excellence, and performance enhancement. She has led national L&D verticals and held leadership roles such as CEO and COO. With over 20,000 training man-hours, her coaching has driven measurable business growth, including 27% sales increases. She also designs campus-to-corporate programs, helping students build employability skills and secure placements.
POSH Compliance Gaps In Indian Service Sectors
As we all know the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) was enacted to ensure safe and dignified workplaces for women across India. While implementation & compliances in large corporates and formal sectors has improved over time, But I see that the readiness among service sectors especially mid-sized firms, MSMEs, unorganized employers, and institutions like education and healthcare remains uneven or nil . Despite legal
mandates, many service organisations lag in genuine compliance, undermining the law’s intent.
Why Are Indian Service Sectors Not Showing Readiness to POSH Compliances?
Is India 100% complaint on Posh Act? this is a burning question I get asked by organisational heads.
Is this compulsory? Is my competitor /or Industry members complying with this act? I just have few data to share with such Organisational Heads. NCRB- national crime records bureau registered only 400 cases of sexual harassment between 2018 to 2022. Are we as stakeholders ready to accept this?
Lack of Awareness and Understanding
Most service sector employers are not fully aware of POSH fundamentals. Many HR leaders and employees do not understand what constitutes harassment, how to file complaints, or how to run Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). Surveys show that only about 42% of women employees know the Act well, and 53% of HR professionals remain confused about its provisions.
Compliance Seen as Formality
Having a written POSH policy is often mistaken for full compliance. Just keeping a printed PPSH act in for office is many a times considered as compliance. Employers fail to translate policy into action through regular training, awareness sessions, functional ICCs, and transparent procedures. Many internal committees exist only “on paper” and are ineffective due to lack of training or capability.
Resource Constraints
Smaller service firms and MSMEs often lack resources to invest in training, committee constitution, or external expert support. They feel that POSH is a cumbersome procedural process, including forming a legally valid ICC, is seen as resource-intensive and challenging, leading many to delay or ignore compliance.
Underreporting and Fear
Stigma, fear of retaliation, and social shame deter women from reporting harassment, which in turn creates a false sense of “no problem” among employers. Underreporting gives organisations an illusion that compliance efforts are unnecessary. If we look at the data among NSE-listed firms, 2,325 POSH complaints were reported in FY 2023-24, up 29% from the previous year, but pending cases also rose 67% (435 unresolved), So we can definitely confer that there is still a reporting fear among the employee & non-compliance adherence .
Lack of Centralised Monitoring
Though the Act mandates data disclosure, India lacks a central repository of POSH compliance data. Many service organisations do not submit annual reports or register ICCs on platforms like SHe-Box, making industry-wide tracking and accountability weak.
Cultural Barriers
Deeply entrenched workplace norms and patriarchal mindsets often trivialise harassment. In many service domains, employers prefer to “sweep issues under the rug” rather than engage with a transparent redressal system.
Implementation Gaps
Supreme Court and government interventions have highlighted serious compliance gaps in the private sector. Even when committees are constituted, many fail to apply fair procedures, preserve confidentiality, or conclude cases in reasonable time.
Sectoral Variance
While blue-chip companies report rising numbers of POSH complaints (6.2% rise in top 30 firms in FY25), this is not reflective of smaller service sectors, which remain mostly non-compliant.
Training Fatigue
Mandatory POSH training is often perceived as repetitive and low value, leading to disengagement among employees, reducing the effectiveness of awareness drives.
Fear of Legal and Reputation Risks
Some employers delay compliance due to fear of legal battles, potential misuse of the law, or damage to reputation. Even though evidence suggests misuse statistically remains low, this perception persists.
Key Learnings
- Many service firms lack basic awareness of POSH Act obligations.
- ICCs are often formed only on paper, without real capability or training.
- Only ~42% of women employees understand their POSH rights.
- Around half of HR professionals are unclear about compliance norms.
- Resource constraints deter small and mid-size service organisations from compliance.
- Employees underreport harassment due to fear and stigma.
- No centralized data makes industry compliance tracking weak.
- Cultural resistance and avoidance mindset persist in many companies.
- Larger corporates show data increases in complaints, but smaller sectors lag.
- Employers fear legal, operational, and reputational risks of compliance.
Analysis of various Indian studies, legal observations, and compliance trends & data of SHE-box portal reveals that structural, cultural, resource, and awareness-related challenges are the primary reasons behind this low readiness. Even though compliance is now correlated with corporate governance and ESG reporting, many organisations still view POSH as a formality rather than as an integral part of workplace culture.
Conclusion: The lack of readiness among Indian service sectors to fully comply with POSH Acts is rooted in awareness, resource, cultural, and implementation challenges. True change requires shifting mindsets, investing in capacity building, and building accountability mechanisms across all service segments not just large corporates.