Beyond the Boardroom: POSH, Power and the Expanding Meaning of Workplace Safety
2. POSH Beyond the Corporate Lens: Sports, Power and Institutional Accountability
3. The Grey Zone in Everyday Workplace Behaviour
4. TCS Nashik Corner: IC Accessibility Under the Spotlight
Editorial
Ms. Maya Sreenivasan
Psychologist,
Subject Matter Expert at eLearnPOSH.com
Post-Inquiry Culture: What Happens After the Order?
A POSH inquiry does not end when the Internal Committee submits its report.
Legally, the file may be closed. But the complainant returns to the same team and informal networks; the respondent, regardless of the outcome, faces stigma, anxiety, or resentment.
Closure of an inquiry is not the restoration of trust. Once an order is passed, organizations must manage the aftermath through precise operational design, not vague culture-building.
1. Absolute Clarity on Roles
The IC owns the inquiry, findings, and recommendations. The employer owns implementation. While HR supports documentation and coordination, it must never reinterpret the IC’s findings, dilute its recommendations, or decide what “really happened.” Post-inquiry management must protect the process, not rewrite it.
2. When Misconduct is Established: Mitigate Social Cost
The employer’s immediate responsibility is to implement the IC’s recommendations without delay or dilution. Beyond issuing the formal order, the organization must ensure the complainant does not pay a social cost for speaking up.
This requires practical, documented safeguards such as reviewing reporting lines, seating, or work allocation. These changes must be made after discussing with the complainant, so they never feel like a penalty disguised as “business convenience.”
3. When Misconduct is Not Established: Prevent Silent Punishment
A finding of “not established” cannot coexist with informal penalization. The respondent should not face quiet suspicion, project exclusion, or delayed opportunities.
Management must explicitly review and lift any interim restrictions (suspensions or reassignments) and document a clear reintegration plan.
4. Separate, Structured Closure Conversations
The organization must hold separate, confidential, and forward-looking conversations with both parties. These are not emotional debriefs or informal mediations, and they must never pressure parties to “move on.”
- With the Complainant: Focus on what actions were taken, what support is available, and clear protocols for reporting potential retaliation.
- With the Respondent: If guilty, outline the consequences and behavioral expectations. If cleared, focus on active reintegration, confidentiality, and managing workplace interactions.
5. Managing the Ecosystem
Managers need boundaries, not confidential case details. Their instructions must be absolute: no gossip, no speculation, no retaliation, and no differential treatment.
Finally, post-inquiry monitoring must be intentional. The authorized function should run structured, confidential check-ins at 30, 60, and 90 days with both parties and managers to actively audit for isolation, hostility, or quiet exclusion.
People do not return to files; they return to teams, managers, and everyday messages. The ultimate test of a POSH framework is not how it handles a complaint; it is how safely its people can return to work after one.
Introduction
The conversation around workplace sexual harassment in India is no longer limited to corporate offices, HR policies or annual compliance cycles. Recent developments show that POSH is increasingly being discussed across sports bodies, universities, government offices, digital platforms, professional associations and large multi-location organisations.
What connects these developments is not just the law. It is the changing understanding of the workplace itself.
A workplace today may include a sports camp, a university corridor, a government department, a hotel during official travel, an Instagram inbox, a WhatsApp message, a national federation, or a branch office hundreds of kilometres away from headquarters. Where professional relationships create power, dependence, opportunity or risk, questions of workplace safety inevitably follow.
This month’s newsletter looks at POSH beyond the conventional corporate lens through sport, everyday grey-zone behaviour, recent legal developments, the TCS Nashik matter, and the growing scrutiny around the structure and accessibility of Internal Committees.
POSH Beyond the Corporate Lens: Sports, Power and Institutional Accountability
Sports has become one of the most important non-corporate spaces in India’s POSH conversation. Unlike a typical office, sports ecosystems often involve residential training camps, travel, selection pressure, coach-athlete dependency, federation control, reputation risk and limited institutional independence for young athletes.
In May 2026, Hockey India reportedly called an emergency Executive Board meeting after multiple complaints involving sexual harassment, misconduct, ethical violations and disciplinary issues surfaced. Hockey India President Dilip Tirkey was reported to have expressed serious concern and called for organisational review and corrective action.
Around the same period, reports stated that Hockey India removed a support staff member from a national camp following sexual misconduct allegations. The development placed renewed attention on accountability within training environments and the systems available to athletes and staff members who may need to report misconduct.
The significance of these reports extends beyond hockey. Sport creates a distinct form of workplace vulnerability. Athletes and support staff may depend on coaches, selectors, administrators and federation officials for access to training, competition, funding and career advancement. In such settings, the ordinary idea of “workplace hierarchy” becomes sharper because opportunity itself may be controlled by a small circle of people.
This issue is not new. In 2023, the Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors. expressed concern over serious gaps in POSH implementation. The Court noted a newspaper survey of 30 national sports federations which reported that 16 had not constituted Internal Complaints Committees, while some existing committees lacked the required number of members or the mandatory external member. Calling this a “sorry state of affairs,” the Court directed authorities across the Union, States and UTs to verify whether ICCs, Local Committees and Internal Committees had been properly constituted under the POSH Act. In May 2023, the National Human Rights Commission had also issued notices to the Union Sports Ministry, Sports Authority of India, BCCI, Wrestling Federation of India and multiple national sports federations over reported absence or non-functioning of Internal Complaints Committees.
The larger message is clear: POSH cannot be understood only through the corporate office. It must also be examined in spaces where careers are built through selection, mentorship, institutional access and reputation. Sports bodies, academies, federations and training centres are not outside the workplace-safety conversation simply because they do not resemble a traditional office.
The Grey Zone in Everyday Workplace Behaviour
Some workplace conduct is obviously inappropriate. Other behaviour exists in a less visible grey zone: not always extreme, not always explicit, and not always intentional, but still capable of affecting how people experience safety, respect and belonging at work.
Grey-zone situations help workplaces move beyond instinctive reactions like “this is nothing” or “this is definitely harassment.” They create space for better questions: whether the conduct was welcome, whether power was involved, whether the person felt free to refuse, and whether the behaviour affected their work environment.
The Joke That Isn’t Funny to Everyone
Humour is a natural part of workplace relationships. It can make teams feel relaxed and connected. But jokes become uncomfortable when they repeatedly rely on the same stereotypes or target the same type of person.
Comments such as “women are too emotional for tough negotiations,” “married women may not be able to travel much,” or “she got promoted because she knows how to charm people” may be presented as casual humour. Yet, when such remarks are repeated, they can reinforce assumptions about gender, marital status, appearance, personality or capability.
The concern is not always one isolated comment. The concern is the pattern it creates.
A joke may appear harmless to those making it, but repeated humour at the expense of one group can quietly shape how people are perceived, included, evaluated or taken seriously. In that sense, workplace humour is not separate from workplace culture; it is one of the ways culture expresses itself.
How Many “Maybes” Mean No?
Not every personal invitation at work is inappropriate. Colleagues may ask each other for coffee, lunch or a casual conversation, and many workplace friendships begin naturally.
The grey zone appears when one person keeps trying despite repeated soft refusals.
Responses such as “maybe later,” “I’m busy,” “not this week,” or “let’s keep it with the team” may be polite ways of setting a boundary. If the other person continues to ask, even in a respectful tone, the interaction can begin to feel less like interest and more like pressure.
This is where POSH becomes relevant as a workplace-safety framework. Sexual harassment under the POSH Act is not limited to physical conduct or explicit comments. Repeated unwanted personal attention, requests or advances may become significant where they are unwelcome, persistent or affect the work environment.
The issue is not only what was intended by the person making the invitation. It is also whether the person receiving the attention felt free to decline without awkwardness, guilt, fear or professional consequence.
When People Quietly Avoid One Person
Some workplace concerns do not begin with a formal complaint. They may first appear as patterns of discomfort.
Employees may avoid being alone with a particular colleague. Team members may prefer not to attend late meetings with someone. New joiners may receive informal warnings such as, “Be careful around him.” A person may continue to make others uncomfortable because they are senior, high-performing, influential, or difficult to challenge.
These patterns should not be treated as proof of misconduct. Rumours, discomfort, or avoidance cannot replace evidence or a fair process. However, they should not be ignored either. They may indicate that employees do not feel confident raising concerns formally, or that certain behaviours need closer attention.
For an organization, the right response is not to label someone guilty. The right response is to strengthen safe channels: remind employees about reporting options, train managers to respond properly, encourage documentation where concerns exist, and ensure that any formal complaint is handled only through the appropriate POSH process.
If a concern reaches the Internal Committee, the IC must examine facts, hear both sides, and follow due process. Informal patterns may explain why someone felt unsafe or delayed reporting, but they should not become a substitute for inquiry.
A quiet workplace does not always mean a comfortable workplace. Sometimes, it means people are managing discomfort privately. The organization’s role is to make sure they do not have to.
What Should Workplaces Do with the Grey Zone?
Grey-zone situations need a clear response pathway. The aim is not to turn every uncomfortable moment into a formal complaint, but to make sure concerns are noticed, handled early and escalated when needed.
A useful way to respond is through three steps: notice, clarify and route.
First, notice the pattern. If an employee repeatedly avoids one person, refuses late meetings, becomes quiet in certain spaces, or mentions discomfort, the manager should not dismiss it as personality conflict. At the same time, they should not treat it as proof of misconduct. It is a signal that may need a careful conversation.
Second, clarify without investigating. A manager can privately ask: “I noticed you seemed uncomfortable in that interaction. Is there anything you would like support with?” If the employee shares a concern, the manager should avoid asking leading questions or testing credibility. The focus should be on immediate support: “Do you feel safe continuing in this arrangement?” “Would you like to know the formal options available?” “Is there any immediate work arrangement that would help you feel more comfortable while this is addressed?”
Third, route it correctly. If the concern involves unwanted personal attention, sexual comments, repeated invitations after refusal, physical discomfort, digital messages, or fear of retaliation, the employee should be guided to HR or the Internal Committee. Managers should not “speak to him quietly” as a substitute for the process if the issue may fall under POSH.
For organizations, practical action can look like this: include examples of grey-zone conduct in POSH training, teach managers first-response language, make reporting channels visible, create a simple way for employees to seek guidance from when in need.
The point at which the grey zone becomes more serious is when conduct is unwelcome, repeated, sexual or gendered in nature, linked to power, or begins to affect the person’s work environment. At that stage, informal handling is no longer enough and the POSH process should be activated.
The POSH Act supports this preventive approach by requiring employers to provide a safe working environment, conduct awareness programmes, assist the Internal Committee, and treat sexual harassment as misconduct under service rules. The Ministry of Women and Child Development’s POSH Handbook also emphasizes that prevention requires awareness and change in attitudes among employers, employees, colleagues and institutions.
In short, do not ignore the grey zone, do not jump to conclusions, and do not let managers run informal inquiries. Notice the signal, support the person, and route the concern to the right process.
TCS Nashik Corner: IC Accessibility Under the Spotlight
The TCS Nashik matter has become one of the most closely watched POSH-related developments of 2026.
Reports state that the National Commission for Women flagged serious POSH-related concerns at the TCS Nashik office, including allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of authority, bullying and non-compliance with POSH requirements. The matter has attracted wider attention because it combines questions of internal reporting, institutional response, workplace culture and the structure of redressal mechanisms.
Following proceedings before the National Commission for Women (NCW), the Commission reportedly directed TCS to constitute separate Internal Committees in all 127 units with ten or more employees within four weeks. The NCW’s press note also stated that the company was directed to conduct comprehensive POSH training programmes, ensure submission of annual POSH reports to concerned authorities, and ensure the physical presence of concerned officials at the next review meeting.
The significance of this development extends beyond one organisation. It places renewed attention on a long-standing POSH question for large employers: whether a centralised Internal Committee, one redressal committe for all the units, can provide meaningful access to employees across multiple units, offices and geographies.
The POSH Act provides that where offices or administrative units are located at different places or at divisional or sub-divisional levels, the Internal Committee must be constituted at all such administrative units or offices. The National Commission for Women’s direction to constitute separate Internal Committees across 127 eligible units is important because, in a multi-location organization, a distant or centralised committee may not always be easy for employees to access. Employees should know who their IC members are, how to approach them, and whether their concern will be handled confidentially and promptly at the workplace level. A unit-level IC also helps ensure that members understand the local work environment, reporting lines, witnesses, documents, and immediate safety needs. The issue, therefore, is not only whether an IC exists somewhere in the organization, but whether employees at each eligible unit have a legally compliant, visible, and reachable forum for redressal.
Legal Developments Corner
Delhi High Court in the case of Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi & Ors: Speed Is Not a Substitute for Process
In Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi & Ors., the dispute arose after complaints of misconduct, including sexual harassment-related allegations, were made against the Principal of Ramanujan College. The matter eventually reached the Delhi High Court after the Principal challenged his suspension. The Court then examined whether the institution had followed the correct process before taking such action.
Reports stated that the college had used a fact-finding committee to look into complaints of misconduct, including sexual harassment. The Court made it clear that when a complaint involves sexual harassment, it should be handled through the POSH mechanism, not through a separate informal or parallel process.
This matters because institutions often want to act quickly when serious allegations come up. Acting quickly is important, especially when workplace safety is involved. But quick action must still follow the correct process.
The POSH process exists to make sure the complaint is handled by the right committee, with fairness, confidentiality, and proper inquiry. If an organization creates a separate route, it can weaken the case and create questions about whether the outcome is fair.
This does not mean employers must remain inactive while an inquiry is pending. They may take temporary protective steps, such as changing reporting lines, adjusting seating, granting leave, or limiting direct interaction, to preserve workplace safety until the inquiry is complete. However, these steps should be neutral and should not look like punishment before the facts are decided. Any written order or communication should also avoid language that suggests the person has already been found guilty.
Guest Article
About the Author
Anumita Sarkar is the Founder of P/ PRABHAVEE, a Strategy Consulting Practice on Human Rights and Responsible Business. She is a lawyer, strategic advisor, and a PoSH consultant and trainer registered with the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India, and an empaneled external consultant with NDIM’s PoSH Internal Committee for Training and Capacity Building. She brings close to two decades of sectoral and cross-functional expertise, and has extensive experience spanning Law Practice, LegalTech, Information Services, Publishing, Consulting, Universities, Public Policy Offices, Social Enterprise, Nonprofit Accelerator, and SPO Advisory Boards. She also serves as an External Member of PoSH Internal Committees.
Power Dynamics and ‘Consent’ in Hierarchical Workplaces: Rethinking Research Ethics in Higher Education
Introduction
Consent in workplace relationships is often perceived by individuals as voluntary and informed. However, when a hierarchical structure exists, there is a possibility that formal consent may not necessarily mean the individual is exercising genuine autonomy. Such concerns are most acute in higher education institutions, where scholars who are seeking their doctoral degrees often rely upon their supervisor for academic evaluation, opportunities to publish, recommendations for funding, and assistance with finding future employment.
According to the Ministry of Education’s All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22, India has over 2.13 lakh PhD scholars enrolled, witnessing a surge in the female PhD enrollment, which has doubled to 0.99 lakh in 2021-22 from 0.48 lakh in 2014-15. The supervisor-research scholar relationship has an inherent imbalance due to the difference in status of the two parties, creating a structural power imbalance. Scholars may be unable to reject a personal advance or an inappropriate request, among other requests, by their supervisor, owing to the fear of consequences for the denial. Therefore, the issues of consent and dependency become intertwined, resulting in significant ethical and legal ramifications.
Coercion without threat: Emotional pressure and Quid Pro Quo Behaviour
Discussions around harassment in the workplace have identified coercion not only as an overtly coercive action via threats but also as emotional manipulation and feelings of implied obligation. This is particularly salient regarding the supervisor-researcher relationship within an academic environment. Quid Pro Quo harassment is also still a large issue and often occurs in very subtle ways. There are many complicating factors in determining what constitutes consent; it is critical to consider the greater dynamic, including all authority roles vs. all subordinate roles, the power dynamic, and the potential for harm to occur.
The Framework of PoSH and Accountable Institutions
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013, or PoSH Act, is the primary legislation governing power-based harassment in all workplaces in India, including educational institutions. The law prohibits the abuse of power to obtain sexual favours, and thereby mandates each university to establish Internal Committees and implement gender sensitisation processes as outlined by the University Grants Commission. While the UGC Guidelines, 2015 and AICTE Regulations 2016, address such concerns in Higher Education Institutions, the implementation of consent-sensitive safeguards is crucial. To effectively regulate harassment of this nature, there must be recognition of the power imbalances that interfere with providing consent. There must also be promotion of more policies to regulate faculty-staff-to-student relationships where a position of authority exists. Best practices include faculty, research supervisors, and students undergoing mandatory training on power dynamics and professional boundaries in the context of academic relationships.
Conclusion
The primary aim is to defend academic integrity and guarantee that institutional decisions maintain human dignity and accountability. The use of “affirmative and continuing consent” is one way to ensure that consent-related processes are free, informed, and freely revocable, and institutions should also conduct ongoing audits to uncover these inappropriate requests.
In academic environments with hierarchical relationships, independent mentors and grievance processes should be used to reduce dependency on a single supervisor. Creating such mechanisms will recognise that power gradients may still lead to decisions made under the influence of power, even in the absence of any clear coercive act.