Staying Ahead in Workplace Safety & Compliance
1.Editorial 2.POSH in Focus 3.Scenario of the Month 4.FAQ Corner 5.Upcoming Webinars 6.News Round-up 7.Have a POSH Question? Editorial Ms. Maya Sreenivasan…
8 min read Read More2. Judgement Analysis: Due Process is Non-Negotiable
3. Case Spotlight: When Inaction Becomes Risk (TCS Nashik)
4. What’s Changing Globally and Why It Matters in India
5. FAQs: Practical Guidance for Immediate Clarity
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.
The Cost of Informal Handling
Imagine this: someone walks up to the HR and says, “I don’t like the way this person is behaving.” The response is often immediate and well-meaning: “Let me speak to him.” “We’ll handle it.”
This feels practical. But in POSH matters, convenience can become non-compliance.
Informal handling is one of the most common grey zones in workplace sexual harassment prevention. Organisations do it because they want to be sensitive and avoid escalation, thinking they are protecting the employee from a difficult process.
But sometimes, what is presented as support becomes silent pressure.
The POSH Act does allow conciliation before an inquiry, but only at the request of the aggrieved woman. It cannot be forced. It also cannot be based on monetary settlement. This means the law allows resolution, but not quiet suppression.
When an employee raises a concern, HR or the manager should sit down with them calmly and explain the available options. They should inform the employee that they have the right to approach the Internal Committee, explain what the IC process broadly looks like, clarify that confidentiality will be maintained, and help them understand what may happen if they choose to file a formal complaint.
That conversation should empower the employee to make an informed decision. It should not push them toward filing a complaint, and it should definitely not push them away from it.
Because when a concern is “handled” informally, the complainant may feel discouraged from filing a formal complaint. They may think the organisation has already decided what is convenient.
It can also affect the respondent. If allegations are discussed casually with managers or leadership, without process or opportunity to respond, fairness is compromised from the beginning.
From an organisational perspective, the risk is simple: if the matter escalates later, the first question will be, “What did you do when you first became aware?”
The answer cannot be, “We tried to manage it quietly.”
Early support is important; but it must be structured. Not every conversation needs to become a formal complaint. But every concern deserves a lawful response.
Judgement Analysis: Due Process is Non-Negotiable
A POSH inquiry does not end with the Internal Committee’s findings. If the process followed during the inquiry is not fair, the entire outcome can come under question.
This is exactly what happened in a recent Kerala High Court case of X v. Kerala Social Security Mission & Ors. In this case a workplace sexual harassment complaint had been examined by the Internal Committee, and the respondent was terminated based on its report. However, the respondent later challenged the inquiry in the court, arguing that the manner of the inquiry was in violation of the POSH Act because they were not given a copy of the complaint, the ICC report, or a proper chance to defend themselves.
What the Court Looked At
The Court examined the issue through the lens of the principles of natural justice which form the foundation of any fair inquiry process.
At its core, natural justice rests on two key ideas. First, a person should not be judged without being heard (audi alteram partem). Second, the process must be fair, unbiased, and transparent so that decisions are based on a proper evaluation of both sides.
In the context of a POSH inquiry, this means the respondent must know exactly what the allegations are, must have access to the relevant material. This includes:
- A copy of the written complaint,
- Details of the alleged incident,
- Evidence or documents relied on by the complainant,
- Names and statements of witnesses
- Any further supporting documentation or evidence.
Furthermore, the respondent must be given a real opportunity, not just be called for a hearing. This includes receiving the complaint and relied-upon material in advance, getting reasonable time to respond, and being allowed to present their version, evidence, and witnesses where applicable. Without this, the process becomes one-sided, even if unintentionally.
What the Court Held
The Court found that since principles of natural justice were not followed, the inquiry could not be considered fair. It reinforced that an inquiry that does not meet the standards of natural justice cannot be sustained, regardless of what the final findings say. On this basis, the Internal Committee’s report was set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered through a fresh inquiry conducted in accordance with law.
Why Sharing the Complaint Matters
Courts treat access to the complaint as a core part of a fair inquiry, not a mere formality. This comes from the principle of audi alteram partem which means “hear the other side” or “no one should be condemned unheard.”
Under the POSH framework, this is reflected in Rule 7 of the POSH Rules, 2013, which requires the respondent to be given a copy of the complaint within the seven working days. The purpose is to ensure that the respondent clearly understands the allegations and has a meaningful chance to respond.
This position has also been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, where the Court held that failure to follow the prescribed inquiry procedure and principles of natural justice can vitiate the proceedings. More broadly, Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India emphasises the need for effective, structured, and properly implemented mechanisms to address workplace sexual harassment complaints.
At the same time, the complaint should be shared only for the purpose of enabling a fair response. The Internal Committee must continue to protect confidentiality, privacy, and dignity while ensuring that the inquiry remains balanced and legally sustainable..
What Strong Internal Committees Should Ensure
A strong IC follows a process that is timely, fair, and clearly documented.
- Share the complaint with the respondent within 7 working days.
- Allow the respondent 10 working days to submit a reply with documents and witnesses.
- Give both parties a fair opportunity to be heard and present relevant material and cross-examine the other party and their witnesses. Cross-examination is not a mandatory requirement in every inquiry. However, where the IC relies on statements or evidence against a party, and that party disputes those facts, the party must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge or test that evidence.
- Maintain confidentiality throughout the process.
- Complete the inquiry within 90 days. IC shall record notices, hearings, evidence, witness statements, findings, reasons, and recommendations clearly. IC shall submit the inquiry report to the employer within 10 days of completion.
- Once the inquiry is completed, the IC must provide the inquiry report to the employer and make it available to both parties.
- If either party is aggrieved by the findings, recommendations, or action taken, they should be informed of their right to appeal as per the POSH Act, service rules, or applicable law.
- Ensure the employer acts on recommendations within 60 days.
When these steps are followed, the inquiry becomes credible, legally defensible, and trusted by employees.
Case Spotlight: When Inaction Becomes Risk (TCS Nashik)
What Has Been Reported
In April 2026, a case involving TCS’s Nashik facility came under public and legal scrutiny after multiple women employees alleged sexual and mental harassment at the workplace.
According to reports by The Economic Times and India Today, FIRs were registered and the matter moved into formal police investigation. Reports also indicated that authorities were examining internal communications, including emails and chats, to understand whether concerns had been raised earlier and how they were handled.
At this stage, these allegations are under investigation and have not been judicially determined.
In its official statement dated 17 April 2026, TCS clarified that:
- A preliminary internal review did not find complaints of the alleged nature through its POSH or ethics channels
- The company had initiated an independent investigation through external firms (Deloitte and Trilegal)
- An oversight committee led by an independent director had been constituted
- Employees under investigation had been suspended
- The company is cooperating fully with law enforcement authorities
This establishes that the organisation has formally disputed the presence of such complaints in its internal systems while acknowledging the seriousness of the matter.
Legal Status of the Matter
With FIRs registered, the case has moved beyond an internal workplace process into the domain of criminal law.
This means:
- The matter is now subject to police investigation
- Evidence is being examined by external authorities
- Any findings will ultimately be tested through the criminal justice system
At this stage, no final legal conclusion has been reached.
What Makes This a POSH-Relevant Case
The importance of this case lies not in its outcome which is still pending, but in the questions, it raises about internal POSH mechanisms.
Under the POSH Act, organisations are required to ensure that:
- employees are aware of how to report complaints
- complaints are formally received and documented
- Internal Committees are accessible and functional
- inquiries are conducted in a time-bound manner
When employees feel that their concerns, whether raised formally or informally, are not being addressed properly, they may choose to take the issue outside the organisation.
Where the Risk Emerges
This case highlights a critical risk area: the gap between employee experience and internal systems.
From a POSH perspective, risk does not arise only from incorrect decisions. It also arises when:
- complaints are not formally captured
- reporting mechanisms are not accessible or trusted
- concerns are not addressed within reasonable timelines
In such situations, matters may escalate into:
- FIRs and criminal proceedings
- external investigations
- regulatory and public scrutiny
Once this happens, the organisation loses the ability to resolve the issue within its internal framework.
What Legal Consequences May Follow
When a workplace concern escalates into FIRs, the matter moves beyond the POSH framework and enters the criminal law system under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Depending on the nature of the allegations, individuals accused of misconduct may face criminal proceedings under provisions such as Sections 74, 75, 76, and 79 of the BNS. These deal with offences such as assault or criminal force affecting a woman’s modesty, sexual harassment, disrobing, and words, gestures, or acts intended to insult modesty. The punishment may range from fine to imprisonment, depending on the offence. Once these provisions are invoked, the issue is no longer confined to the organisation. It may involve police investigation under the BNSS, criminal proceedings, and personal liability for individuals involved.
There may also be consequences for the organisation. If the employer fails to constitute an Internal Committee, does not act on the IC’s recommendations, fails to comply with statutory duties, or otherwise violates the POSH Act or Rules, it may face penalties under Section 26 of the POSH Act, including a fine of up to ₹50,000. For repeated non-compliance, stricter consequences may follow, including higher penalties and possible cancellation, withdrawal, or non-renewal of business licences or registrations, where applicable.
Beyond statutory penalties, an ineffective organisational response can also expose the employer to reputational harm, loss of employee trust, regulatory scrutiny, workplace disruption, and legal challenges to the inquiry process or action taken.
In simple terms:
A delayed or ineffective response can shift a POSH matter into the criminal justice system where the consequences are significantly more serious and no longer within organisational control.
What’s Changing Globally and Why It Matters in India
Workplace standards around harassment and conduct are evolving rapidly across the world, and these developments are shaping expectations in India as well.
The ILO Convention No. 190 (2019) is the first international treaty specifically addressing violence and harassment in the world of work. It recognises that such behaviour can include physical, psychological, sexual, and economic harm, and places clear expectations on prevention, reporting, and redressal mechanisms.
There is also increasing recognition of the impact of workplace behaviour on mental well-being. Research published in peer-reviewed journals such as the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has linked workplace harassment to outcomes such as anxiety, stress, and reduced workplace engagement. Another important shift is the expectation of organisational accountability. Global frameworks such as the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) and Recommendation No. 206 emphasise that employers should not limit themselves to reacting after harm occurs. They are expected to take preventive steps, assess workplace risks, create accessible complaint and resolution mechanisms, protect individuals from retaliation, and provide appropriate support and remedies to affected persons. The ILO’s practical guide for employers also highlights prevention, enterprise-level policies, risk management, and clear employer responsibilities as central to addressing workplace violence and harassment. For organisations in India, these trends are highly relevant. Courts are placing greater emphasis on due process and fairness, employees are more aware of their rights, and workplace issues are receiving increased public attention. The direction is clear; compliance is being redefined through accountability, transparency, and culture.
What this Means for Organisations in India
These global developments are reflected in India through clear directions from courts, statutory requirements, and official government guidance.
At the policy level, the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), in its Handbook on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (2015), clearly states that employers are responsible for ensuring proper constitution of the Internal Committee, timely redressal of complaints, and awareness of the law across the organisation.
The law also places reporting obligations on organisations. Under Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014, companies are required to disclose in their Board’s Report the number of complaints received, disposed of, and pending. This brings workplace harassment into formal corporate reporting and governance structures.
In addition, official data reflects the broader scale of gender-based offences in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Crime in India Report 2022, over 85,000 cases were registered under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty).
While this data is not limited to workplace incidents, it highlights the wider environment in which workplace harassment exists and the importance of having effective internal mechanisms to address such concerns.
The Direction is Clear
Taken together, these signals point to a consistent expectation within India’s legal and regulatory framework. Courts have acknowledged gaps in implementation. Government guidance places clear responsibility on employers. The law requires formal reporting and transparency.
In simple terms, POSH in India is no longer just about having systems in place it is about ensuring those systems function as intended.
FAQs: Practical Guidance for Immediate Clarity
Guest Article
POSH Consultant | External Member | Workplace Safety & Compliance Trainer
“Nobody objected when the employee entered the meeting room wearing smart glasses. The discomfort began only when colleagues realised the device could silently record conversations.”
A few months ago, an unusual situation emerged in a Pune-based IT company.
An employee started wearing AI-powered smart glasses to work. Initially, it looked like nothing more than a modern gadget sleek, innovative, and futuristic. But within days, discomfort began spreading across teams. Colleagues realised that the glasses could record audio, capturing video, and processing information in real time.
Meetings became awkward. Informal discussions in cafeterias felt guarded. Employees were unsure whether they were simply being observed… or silently recorded.
No formal complaint was filed. no obvious misconduct occurred. Yet psychological safety had already been disturbed.
That silent discomfort is precisely where the future of workplace risk begins.
“As a POSH trainer and External Member, I increasingly observe organisations struggling to align traditional workplace safety frameworks with emerging AI-enabled risks.” However, technology is rapidly changing the nature of workplace behaviour, privacy, and consent. AI-powered smart glasses and wearable devices are introducing a new category of invisible risk one that organisations, Internal Committees, HR leaders, and compliance teams cannot afford to ignore.
The Rise of Wearable Surveillance
Devices such as AI-enabled smart glasses are no longer limited to taking photographs or recording short clips. Modern wearable technology can:
- Capture audio and video discreetly
- Perform facial recognition
- Analyse conversations in real time
- Store cloud-based behavioural data
- Provide AI-generated insights instantly
Unlike smartphones, wearable devices often lack obvious indicators while recording. This creates a serious concern around covert recording situations where individuals may be recorded without informed consent.
The challenge is not merely technological. It is ethical, psychological, and legal.
Because the workplace is built on trust and trust weakens the moment employees begin feeling watched rather than respected.
Why This Is a POSH Concern
The POSH Act, 2013 was introduced to create safer workplaces and protect employees from sexual harassment. However, the digital workplace has evolved far beyond the scenarios many policies were originally designed to address.
Today, harassment may not always involve physical proximity or verbal misconduct. Digital behaviour itself can create intimidation, discomfort, humiliation, or psychological insecurity.
Imagine these situations:
- A training session secretly recorded through smart glasses
- Private conversations captured without consent
- Images or videos shared digitally within groups
- Internal Committee proceedings leaked or recorded
- AI-enabled devices analysing employee behaviour invisibly
These are not hypothetical risks anymore.
The issue is particularly important because workplace safety today includes digital dignity. Employees have the right to feel safe not only physically but also psychologically and digitally.
Many organisations continue conducting POSH awareness sessions using traditional case studies while overlooking emerging risks related to wearable technology, covert surveillance, and AI-enabled misconduct.
That gap in awareness may become one of the biggest compliance risks of the future.
The DPDP Act Changes the Conversation
The introduction of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 significantly expands the discussion around workplace safety and employee privacy.
Under the DPDP framework:
- Personal data cannot be collected without consent
- Data processing must have a lawful purpose
- Organisations may become responsible as Data Fiduciaries
- Individuals hold rights over their personal data
- Non-compliance can attract significant penalties
This becomes particularly relevant in the context of smart glasses.
Faces, voices, behavioural patterns, interactions, and recordings may all qualify as personal data. AI-enabled devices can collect, analyse, and store this information rapidly often without the awareness of those being recorded.
Now consider the implications:
If an employee secretly records colleagues using wearable devices, who becomes accountable?
The individual? The organisation? Both?
This is where HR, legal teams, and Internal Committees must begin thinking proactively rather than reactively.
Because by the time a complaint reaches escalation, trust may already be damaged.
Manufacturing Companies Face Greater Risk
While technology discussions often focus on corporate offices, manufacturing environments may face even more complex challenges.
Factory floors involve:
- Shift-based work culture
- Contractual labour
- Multiple supervision layers
- Language barriers
- Limited digital awareness
In such environments, wearable surveillance can create confusion, discomfort, and misuse at a larger scale.
Sensitive production processes, employee interactions, confidential operations, and even safety incidents may be captured through wearable devices.
Yet many organisations still do not have:
- Clear wearable-device policies
- No-recording zones
- Digital behaviour guidelines
- AI-related workplace protocols
- Training on covert recording risks
The absence of these frameworks creates policy gaps that may become future legal vulnerabilities.
Internal Committees Must Evolve
Internal Committees under the POSH Act were never designed only to investigate complaints. Their larger role is prevention. However, prevention in the AI era requires new competencies.
IC members must now understand:
- Digital harassment
- Covert recording behaviour
- Data privacy implications
- AI-enabled evidence
- Cyber ethics
- Psychological safety in digital spaces
Traditional awareness models are no longer sufficient. Future-ready organisations will be those that integrate:
- POSH compliance
- DPDP compliance
- Workplace culture
- Digital ethics
- AI governance
- into one unified safety framework.
What Organisations Should Do Now
The solution is not fear of technology. The solution is preparedness.
Organisations must proactively revisit policies and training frameworks before incidents occur.
Key preventive steps include:
1. Update POSH Policies
Explicitly include:
- Covert recording
- AI-enabled misconduct
- Digital privacy violations
- Wearable-device misuse
2. Introduce Wearable Technology Guidelines
Create:
- No-recording zones
- Consent protocols
- Meeting confidentiality rules
3. Train Employees on Digital Dignity
Awareness should now include:
- Ethical technology use
- Privacy boundaries
- Digital behaviour expectations
4. Upskill Internal Committees
IC members should understand:
- AI-enabled evidence
- DPDP obligations
- Technology-related harassment patterns
5. Build a Culture of Prevention
Policies alone do not create safety. Culture does.
Employees should feel:
- Heard
- Respected
- Psychologically safe
- Digitally protected
The Real Question
The future workplace will not only deal with visible misconduct. It will increasingly deal with invisible capture.
The real risk may not be someone behaving inappropriately in front of others.
It may be someone silently recording, analysing, storing, or sharing information without consent. Technology will continue evolving rapidly. Policies and awareness must evolve faster.
Because privacy in the digital era is not a luxury. It is a workplace right.
And organisations that fail to recognise this early may eventually realise that the biggest threats are often the ones employees cannot see.