eLearnPOSH Monthly Digest (January 2026 Edition)

• From the Editor’s Desk
• Key POSH developments that defined 2025
  1. 1. 1. Supreme Court clarified where third party POSH complaints can be file.
        2. Board’s Report must now disclose sexual harassment complaints
        3. SHe Box registration mandated for workplaces
        4. Can the IC act when the complaint is against the employer?
        5. Supreme Court Ordered POSH District Wise Survey
        6. Can Insisting on handshakes amount to sexual harassment?
        7. Can the POSH Complaint be filed after 3 months?
        8. UGC reinforced mandatory POSH compliance for universities and colleges
        9. Political Parties not required to constitute IC
        10. Digital spaces now covered under POSH law
        11. Not all workplace disputes amount to harassment
        12. POSH annual reports in Gurugram came under district scrutiny

From the Editor’s Desk

12 Years of POSH: Progress, Problems & The Path Forward

About the Author

Ms. Maya Sreenivasan

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.

It’s been 12 years since the POSH Act was introduced. It was a landmark moment that finally gave seriousness to the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. Since then, much has changed.

More employees today know what behaviour is unacceptable. Internal Committees exist in most organisations. Annual trainings, written policies, and awareness sessions have become routine. Some companies have gone further by investing in culture change, manager sensitisation, and post-reporting support.

This is progress. But let’s not pretend we’ve nailed it.

The POSH Act was a powerful start, but it comes with challenges:

• It applies only to women, leaving out men and LGBTQ+ individuals.
• The Act places the burden of conducting inquiries on IC members who may not have legal or investigative training. This has led to procedural lapses, questions about fairness, and even writ petitions in courts challenging IC findings.
• The Act is clear about non-retaliation; but culturally, organisations often forget the rights of the respondent.

Here’s the good news: You don’t have to wait for a legal amendment to do better.
The POSH Act legally applies to women employees and defines harassment in a fairly specific way. But real-life discomfort, discrimination, and harassment can affect anyone.

One important step organisations can take is to make their anti-harassment policies more inclusive. While the POSH Act specifically protects women, the internal policy can explicitly extend protection to all employees regardless of gender identity. This means offering clear reporting pathways for anyone who feels unsafe at work, even if their case doesn’t fall strictly within the legal definition under POSH. Some companies do this by creating channels like an “Ethics Helpline” or a “Respect at Work” complaint form, routed through HR or an internal ethics committee.

And if the Internal Committee is entrusted with handling complaints from individuals outside the POSH Act’s defined scope, such as male or LGBTQ+ employees, organisations must note that this authority stems from internal policy, not the Act itself. That distinction is important, and it ensures the IC operates within its mandate while still enabling the organisation to act fairly and proactively.

Most organisations set up Internal Committees to meet compliance requirements. The real challenge is in making those committees competent, confident, and independent. If you want your IC to function with fairness and authority, invest in deep, hands-on training. Expose your members to mock hearings, past case scenarios, and trauma-informed practices. Train them on how to spot bias in themselves and others, how to handle digital evidence, and how to question without causing harm. Equally important is ensuring the IC’s independence. Members must feel empowered to make decisions without influence from leadership or fear of organisational politics.

It’s also wise to audit your IC once a year. Ask: How many cases were delayed? Was neutrality maintained? Were both parties treated with dignity? When required, bring in external legal experts or psychologists to help with complex or emotionally sensitive cases.

Another area where mature organisations can go beyond the law is in how they protect both parties involved in a POSH inquiry, not just the complainant. Many respondents face informal backlash the moment they’re named; being sidelined, whispered about, or viewed as guilty before the inquiry even begins. This not only harms individuals, it undermines the credibility of the entire process. The IC and HR must actively uphold neutrality from the very beginning. That starts with language. Avoid terms like “victim” or “accused” in formal communication; stick to “complainant” and “respondent”.

Confidentiality must be non-negotiable. Only those directly involved in the inquiry should be informed, and all managers should be formally reminded about the importance of staying silent on details they aren’t authorised to discuss. Both parties should have access to emotional support if needed. If counselling is offered to one, it should be made available to the other as well. The same goes for rescheduling interviews, clarification on process, or HR support.

Finally, retaliation doesn’t just go one way. Respondents may be excluded from projects or quietly passed over for roles due to unresolved bias or internal politics. A well-run organisation recognises this risk and sets clear boundaries: gossip, exclusion, or informal punishment will not be tolerated. A fair process isn’t just about following the law. It’s about making sure everyone involved feels heard, respected, and protected until the facts speak for themselves.

As we mark 12 years of POSH, let’s ask, “do people in your organisation feel safe?”
That’s the real measure. And it starts with leadership making a conscious decision: to go beyond what the law requires; and do what safety demands.

Key POSH developments that defined 2025

12 years of the POSH Act, 12 updates that shaped compliance this year

1.Supreme Court clarified where third party POSH complaints can be filed

The Supreme Court clarified how jurisdiction under the POSH Act applies in cases where the respondent does not belong to the same workplace as the complainant.

In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, the Court held that an aggrieved woman is entitled to file her complaint before the Internal Committee of her own workplace, even if the respondent is employed in another organisation or department. The Court clarified that the POSH Act does not require the respondent to be an employee of the same workplace for a complaint to be maintainable.

The Court explained that Section 11 of the POSH Act sets out the inquiry procedure and does not determine jurisdiction. A narrow interpretation that forces a complainant to approach the respondent’s workplace committee would defeat the object of the Act and discourage reporting.

The Court further clarified that while the Internal Committee at the complainant’s workplace can conduct the inquiry and record findings, responsibility for disciplinary action continues to rest with the employer of the respondent.

2. Board’s Report must now disclose sexual harassment complaints

A key POSH related regulatory change introduced during the year was the requirement to disclose sexual harassment complaint data in the Board’s Report.

In July 2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified the Companies Accounts Second Amendment Rules 2025, effective 14 July 2025. Under the amended Rule 8, Sub rule 5A, clause (x) of the Companies Accounts Rules 2014, companies are now required to disclose in their Board’s Report:

• Number of sexual harassment complaints received during the financial year

• Number of complaints disposed of during the financial year

• Number of complaints pending for more than ninety days

Earlier, companies were only required to confirm constitution of the Internal Committee under the POSH Act. This change moved POSH compliance from a general statement to specific, board level disclosure of complaint data.

It is important to note that the Board’s Report follows the financial year, and disclosures must therefore relate to the period from 1^st April to 31^st March.

3. SHe Box registration mandated for workplaces

SHe-Box was relaunched following the Supreme Court’s directions in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, with the portal stating that all workplaces, including private organisations, must register their Internal Committees and workplace details to enable proper routing of complaints under the POSH Act.

During 2025, several District Officers issued circulars mandating registration on SHe Box, and many organisations also received emails from District Administrations directing them to register. Sector regulators such as the Ministry of Education and the National Stock Exchange similarly issued instructions requiring registration on the portal.

Further, by order dated 12 August 2025, the Supreme Court directed State Governments to conduct district wise surveys to verify compliance and ensure that data collected is onboarded onto the SHe-Box platform maintained by the Department of Women and Child Development. This direction further emphasised the need for organisations to register their details on the portal.

4. Can the IC act when the complaint is against the employer?

The Court explains the term ‘employer’ and clarifies IC jurisdiction

In the case of X v. Akademi and Ors., the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 28 August 2025 clarified how the term employer must be understood under the POSH Act. The Court explained that employer is not decided by designation alone.

Any person who exercises real control over the workplace, administration, or employees can fall within the definition of employer under the POSH Act. Where the complaint is against such a person, the Internal Committee (IC) does not have jurisdiction, and the matter must be handled by the Local Complaints Committee. The Court also clearly stated that a written complaint is mandatory for an Internal Committee to assume jurisdiction. In the absence of a written complaint addressed to the Internal Committee, any inquiry conducted by it has no legal basis. On this ground, the Court set aside the Internal Committee’s report as invalid.

On retaliation, the Court observed that termination or adverse action taken while a sexual harassment complaint is pending cannot be treated as a routine administrative step. Such action attracts strict judicial scrutiny, especially where it appears to punish an employee for invoking POSH remedies. The Court held that probationary status or service conditions cannot be used to defeat statutory protections, and retaliatory termination cannot be sustained.

5. Supreme Court Ordered POSH District Wise Survey

In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, the Supreme Court on August 12, 2025, directed all States and Union Territories to conduct a district wise survey to verify whether organisations have constituted Internal Complaints Committees as required under Section 4 of the POSH Act.

The Court directed Labour Commissioners and District Officers to collect district level data on IC constitution across workplaces and transmit this information through the Chief Secretaries.

The Court also reiterated that penalties under Section 26 of the POSH Act apply for non- compliance, including fines up to ₹50,000 and potential cancellation of licences for repeat violations. In addition, the Court stated that States may ensure that data already collected is uploaded on the SHe Box platform created by the Ministry of Women and Child Development to enable centralised monitoring.

Following this order, several States initiated compliance action. For instance, the Karnataka Labour Department, through a circular dated 21 August 2025, directed Labour Officers to verify ICC constitution in commercial establishments and submit compliance reports.

6. Can Insisting on handshakes amount to sexual harassment?

Intent and Impact explained

The Madras High Court clarified that under the POSH Act, what matters is how conduct is received by the woman, not the intention of the person accused.

In the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. v. N. Parthasarathy, vide its order dated January 22, 2025, the Court held that repeatedly insisting on handshakes, standing too close, unwanted touching, and asking personal questions can amount to sexual harassment when the other person is uncomfortable.

The Court clearly stated the impact of the conduct on the aggrieved woman carries more weight than the intent of the respondent.

The Court also confirmed that an inquiry conducted by the Internal Committee is a valid disciplinary inquiry under the POSH Act. Once the Internal Committee follows a fair process, the employer is not required to conduct a separate inquiry.

7. Can the POSH Complaint be filed after 3 months?

In the case of Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors., the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the limitation period under the POSH Act must be strictly followed.

The Court held that a complaint of sexual harassment must be filed within three months from the date of the last incident. This period may be extended by a further three months if sufficient cause is shown. Beyond a maximum of six months, a complaint is not maintainable under the law.

Further, the Court also issued an unusual and significant direction. It ordered that the allegations of sexual harassment would remain on record and directed the respondent Vice Chancellor to include a reference to this judgment in his resume.

The judgment highlights two important points for employers and committees. Limitation under the POSH Act is mandatory and cannot be relaxed beyond the statutory cap, but dismissal on limitation does not automatically erase the seriousness or reputational impact of the allegations.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Mohammad Altaf Bhat Vs Principal Chief of Commissioner and Ors., also held that the IC cannot entertain the POSH Complaint that is filed after the limitation period.

8. UGC reinforced mandatory POSH compliance for universities and colleges

The University Grants Commission issued a nationwide directive requiring all Higher Education Institutions to strengthen POSH Act compliance, following concerns raised by the National Commission for Women about non functional Internal Complaints Committees and lack of awareness initiatives.

The directive makes it clear that POSH compliance is a continuous and mandatory obligation, not a one-time formality. Institutions must demonstrate that their systems are active, visible, and accessible.

Under the directive, HEIs must constitute and operationalise a compliant Internal Committee, submit updated POSH data for 2024–25 on the UGC SAKSHAM Portal, conduct regular awareness programmes, publicly display IC and POSH details, and participate in the NCW Campus Calling Programme.

9. Political Parties not required to constitute IC

In Yogamaya v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s view that political parties, as such, are not workplaces under the POSH Act. The Court clarified that joining a political party does not create an employment relationship and does not amount to an employer employee contract under the law.

While political party membership falls outside the POSH Act, the position changes where a political party employs regular salaried staff. If a party engages employees such as clerical staff, IT or social media teams, drivers, housekeeping or event personnel, and the employee strength exceeds ten, it is required to constitute an Internal Committee for those employees.

Further, complaints against such employees must be handled by the Internal Committee even if the complainant is a visitor or a grassroots party worker, as the conduct arises within a workplace involving employed staff.

10. Digital spaces now covered under POSH law

The Delhi High Court clarified that workplace harassment under the POSH Act is not limited to physical spaces and can extend to digital communication where a professional relationship exists.

In Dr. Amit Kumar v. University of Delhi, the Court held that messages exchanged on platforms such as WhatsApp and social media can fall within the scope of sexual harassment when they arise out of a work-related relationship, even though the POSH Act is silent on virtual workplaces.

The Court upheld the Internal Committee’s findings and rejected technical challenges to the inquiry. It observed that minor procedural variations do not invalidate an ICC inquiry unless real prejudice is shown, and that inquiries can be conducted with the required quorum under the POSH Rules.

The Court accepted the condonation of delay, observing that the alleged conduct was continuous and could not be treated as a one-time incident.

11. Not all workplace disputes amount to harassment

In X v. Abraham Mathai & Ors., the Kerala High Court held that every workplace disagreement or uncomfortable interaction does not amount to sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act.

The Court stated that an Internal Committee must examine the allegations carefully and determine whether the conduct complained of actually falls within the statutory definition of sexual harassment, and not proceed merely on the basis of perception or dissatisfaction.

The Court further emphasised that Internal Committees must record clear and reasoned findings, explaining how and why the alleged conduct satisfies the legal ingredients of sexual harassment under the Act.

12. POSH annual reports in Gurugram came under district scrutiny

The Gurugram District Administration issued a notification directing organisations to submit their POSH Annual Report along with a detailed compliance checklist and supporting documents.

This development marked an important shift in how annual reporting under the POSH Act is being viewed. Instead of treating the Annual Report as a routine year end filing, the District Administration sought to verify whether POSH compliance is actually implemented on the ground.

Through the compliance checklist, employers were required to confirm not only submission of the Annual Report under Section 21, but also proper constitution and functioning of the Internal Committee, display of POSH notices, awareness programmes, and maintenance of inquiry records.

The notification assumes significance in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s direction for district wise POSH survey in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa. It reflects a broader move toward inspection ready POSH compliance, where employers may be required to demonstrate records and evidence, not just policies.