posh compliance

False Complaint Vs Not Provided Compliant

1. Editor’s Note: A False POSH Complaint Is Not the Same as an Unproved One

2. Legal Lens: What Section 14 Says About a False POSH Complaint

3. Case Watch: Jharkhand HC on False POSH Complaints

4. IC Corner: How to Word Findings to Avoid Wrongly Calling It a False POSH Complaint

5. Manager and HR Watchout: Who Really Needs to Know?

6. Culture Cue: Why the “False POSH Complaint” Label Matters

Editor’s Note: Not Proved Is Not the Same as False

Ms. Maya Sreenivasan

Psychologist,
Subject Matter Expert at eLearnPOSH.com

Not Proved Is Not the Same as a False POSH Complaint

Few phrases in POSH conversations create as much fear as “false complaint.”

For respondents, the concern is real. No person should be casually named, judged, or made to carry reputational damage without a fair process. A malicious complaint can cause serious harm.

But there is another side to this conversation.

A complaint not being proved is not the same as a complaint being false.

This distinction is important because many workplace harassment complaints are difficult to prove in a neat, documentary way. The incident may have happened in private. There may be no witnesses. The communication may have been verbal. The discomfort may have built slowly through repeated behaviour, not one dramatic event. Evidence may be limited, inconsistent, or incomplete.

That does not automatically mean the complaint was dishonest.

At the same time, fairness to the respondent matters. If a complaint is genuinely malicious or knowingly false, the system must have the courage to say so and act on it.

The challenge is not choosing one side. The challenge is using the right standard, the right language, and the right process.

When organisations casually call every unproved complaint “false,” they create fear around reporting. When they ignore genuine malicious complaints, they weaken faith in fairness.

Both are harmful.

A mature POSH framework should be able to hold both truths together: protect the right to report, and protect the right to respond.

The difference between “not proved” and “false” may sound technical.

But in practice, it decides whether people trust the process.

Legal Lens: What Section 14 Says About a False POSH Complaint

Section 14 of the POSH Act deals with punishment for false or malicious complaints and false evidence.

It allows the IC or LC to recommend action if it concludes that the allegation was malicious, the complaint was made knowing it to be false, or forged or misleading documents were produced.

But the safeguard is equally important.

Section 14 clearly says that a mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action against the complainant. It also requires malicious intent to be established through an inquiry before any action is recommended.

So action under Section 14 is not automatic.

If a complaint is not established, the IC cannot jump to the conclusion that it was false. There must be a separate and reasoned assessment of malice, knowing falsity, or forged or misleading evidence.

The legal position is simple:

Unproved does not mean false. False requires a separate finding.

Case Watch: Jharkhand HC on False POSH Complaints

In Bijaya Mishra v. Union of India & Another, the Jharkhand High Court considered several issues arising from a workplace sexual harassment inquiry, including conflict of interest within the Internal Committee, compliance with natural justice, reliance on a police closure report, and disciplinary action against the complainant. The central issue relevant here was the distinction between an unproved complaint and a false or malicious complaint under Section 14 of the POSH Act.

The petitioner made allegations of workplace sexual harassment against a colleague and also lodged a police complaint. After investigation, the police submitted a closure report treating the allegations as untrue, which was initially accepted by the Magistrate. Separately, the institution’s Committee Against Sexual Harassment found that the allegations were not substantiated and described them as incorrect. Relying on the Committee’s findings and the police closure report, the institution initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for allegedly filing a false complaint, ultimately removing her from service.

The High Court held that a complaint cannot be treated as false or malicious merely because it is not proved. Section 14 expressly provides that the inability of a woman to substantiate her complaint or provide adequate proof cannot, by itself, justify action against her.

For action under Section 14, the Internal Committee must establish through a fair inquiry that the complainant acted with malicious intent, knew that the allegations were false, or knowingly produced forged or misleading documents.

The Court emphasised that the terms “incorrect,” “unsubstantiated,” and “false” are not interchangeable. A complaint may remain unproved because of insufficient evidence, lack of witnesses, differing perceptions, or failure to meet the required standard of proof. These circumstances do not automatically establish deliberate falsehood or malice.

In this case, the Committee had not conducted a proper inquiry into whether the petitioner knowingly made false allegations or acted maliciously. It had also not recorded a clear finding regarding her intention. The legal requirements for invoking Section 14 were therefore not satisfied.

The Court further held that a police closure report does not independently prove that a complaint was knowingly false. Deliberate fabrication or malicious intent must be separately established.

The disciplinary action and removal order were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.

The key principle is that failure to prove sexual harassment is not the same as proving that the complaint was false.

IC Corner: How to Word Findings to Avoid Wrongly Calling It a False POSH Complaint

The language in IC’s Inquiry Findings Report matters because the wrong word can change the meaning of the outcome.

If the evidence does not establish sexual harassment, the IC may record a finding like:

“The complaint is not established due to insufficient evidence.”

This means the IC did not find enough material to prove the allegation. It may be because there were no witnesses, the available documents did not support the allegation, the statements were inconsistent, or the standard of proof was not met.

This is very different from saying:

“The complaint is false.”

To reach that conclusion, the IC must go further. It must examine whether the complainant knowingly made a false allegation, acted with malicious intent, or produced forged or misleading documents.

For example, a finding of false complaint may require material showing that the complainant knew the incident did not happen, deliberately fabricated evidence, knowingly altered messages, produced misleading documents, or made the complaint for an ulterior purpose that is supported by evidence.

Even then, the IC should not treat this as an automatic extension of the main inquiry. It should record a separate, reasoned finding on why Section 14 is attracted.

A safer structure for findings may be:

Where evidence is insufficient:

“The allegation is not established on the basis of the material available before the IC. This finding should not be read as a finding that the complaint was false or malicious.”

Where contradiction exists but malice is not proved:

“The IC notes inconsistencies in the material placed before it. However, there is no sufficient basis to conclude that the complaint was knowingly false or malicious.”

Where Section 14 may apply:

“The IC finds, based on the material examined separately, that the complaint was made knowing it to be false / with malicious intent / supported by forged or misleading documents. Reasons for this conclusion are recorded below.”

The distinction is not cosmetic. It protects the complainant from unfair punishment and protects the respondent from malicious allegations. It also protects the credibility of the IC’s report.

Manager and HR Watchout: Who Really Needs to Know?

A manager does not automatically need to know that a POSH complaint has been filed.

In fact, confidentiality requires the opposite. POSH case details should be shared only on a strict need-to-know basis. A manager may be informed only if their involvement is necessary for work allocation, interim measures, attendance coordination, prevention of retaliation, or implementation of the employer’s decision.

Even then, the manager does not need the full facts, evidence, allegations, or findings unless absolutely necessary. They need limited instructions.

For example:

“Please ensure there is no change in work allocation without approval.”

“Please ensure there is no discussion or speculation in the team.”

“Please route any concerns regarding team interaction to HR/the authorised person.”

What managers should not do is interpret the outcome for the team.

If a complaint is not established, managers should not say, “It was a false complaint,” unless the IC has specifically found malicious intent or knowing falsity under Section 14.

The safer language is:

“The matter has been handled through the appropriate process. Please do not discuss or speculate about it.”

HR’s role is also limited by the process. HR may support documentation, coordination, implementation, and workplace safeguards. But HR should not dilute IC findings, convert “not proved” into “false,” or informally brief managers beyond what is necessary.

Confidentiality is not just about secrecy. It is about preventing unnecessary damage.

Culture Cue: Why the “False POSH Complaint” Label Matters

The way an organisation speaks about unproved complaints shapes its reporting culture.

If every unproved complaint is spoken about as an example of “misuse, employees will learn quickly. They will learn that unless they have perfect evidence, it may be safer to

stay silent. That is dangerous because many harassment complaints do not come with perfect evidence.

But the opposite is also true. If organisations refuse to acknowledge that malicious complaints can happen, respondents will lose trust in the process. They may feel that the system is not interested in fairness, only optics.

Both extremes weaken POSH.

A healthy culture does not treat every complaint as true or false by default.

It allows the IC to do its work carefully. It respects evidence. It protects confidentiality. It avoids casual labels. And most importantly, it understands that fairness must travel in both directions.

Beyond the Boardroom: POSH, Power and the Expanding Meaning of Workplace Safety

1. Editorial

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

5. Legal Developments Corner

6. Guest Article

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.

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.

POSH compliance risks and workplace harassment prevention guidance for HR teams in 2026

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.

Know More

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.

Sexual Harassment Prevention: 5 Important Judgements

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also called as POSH Act was a significant step towards India’s fight against sexual harassment at workplace.

POSH Act mandates that awareness sessions on sexual harassment and its prevention should be conducted for all the employees.

Know More

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.

POSH Compliance Risks 2026 for HR Teams: Essential Guide

1. From the Editor’s Desk

2. 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

6. Guest article

From the Editor’s Desk

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.

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

Case Context

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.

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.

What TCS Has Officially Stated

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.

Globally, workplace harassment is now recognised as a widespread issue. A joint report by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Lloyd’s Register Foundation, and Gallup (2022) estimates that over 743 million people worldwide have experienced violence or harassment at work during their lifetime. This highlights the scale of the issue and the need for structured and effective responses.

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.

In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), the Supreme Court recorded that there were “serious lapses and gaps in the enforcement of the Act” and directed all States and Union Territories to ensure proper implementation of the POSH framework. This included ensuring the constitution of Internal Committees, conducting awareness programmes, and strengthening monitoring mechanisms.

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

1. What should the IC do if the complaint does not prove sexual harassment, but shows other inappropriate workplace behaviour?

The Internal Committee’s jurisdiction is confined to deciding whether the complaint establishes sexual harassment under the POSH Act, 2013. If the IC finds that sexual harassment is not proved, Section 13(2) requires it to recommend that no action is required under the POSH Act.

The IC should not convert the inquiry into a general disciplinary proceeding or recommend punishment for non-POSH misconduct. This position was affirmed by the Bombay High Court in Dr. Mohinder Kumar v. Chairman, NABARD, where the Court held that once the committee found that the conduct did not amount to sexual harassment, it could not recommend disciplinary action on other grounds.

However, if the inquiry reveals conduct that may violate workplace discipline, service rules, standing orders, employment terms, or the code of conduct, the IC may record that such issue falls outside its POSH jurisdiction and refer it to the concerned department, HR, disciplinary authority, ethics committee, or other authorised person.

The employer may then examine the matter independently under the applicable disciplinary framework, following due process.

2. What should the IC do if the complaint includes both POSH and non-POSH allegations?

Where a complaint contains allegations of sexual harassment along with other workplace concerns, the Internal Committee should first identify which facts fall within the scope of the POSH Act, 2013.

The IC’s inquiry should be limited to determining whether sexual harassment is proved. It should not assume jurisdiction over issues that are not connected to sexual harassment merely because they arise from the same complaint or workplace relationship.

Under Sections 11 and 13 of the POSH Act, the IC’s role is to inquire into the complaint of sexual harassment and submit findings on whether such allegation is proved. If sexual harassment is proved, the IC may recommend action under Section 13(3), in accordance with the applicable service rules. If it is not proved, the IC must close the POSH matter under Section 13(2).

Where the inquiry reveals conduct that may require action outside the POSH framework, the IC may record that such matter falls outside its jurisdiction and refer it to the appropriate department or authorised person for independent consideration under the organisation’s applicable rules, policies, or disciplinary process.

The key principle is that the IC should decide the POSH issue, while the employer or competent authority may separately examine any non-POSH workplace concern through the proper process.

Guest Article

Aniket Swaraj

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.

POSH Compliance Checklist: What HR Must Review in 2026

1. From the Editor’s Desk

2. POSH Compliance Made Simple (2026)

3. What does Relevance in POSH Compliance Mean?

4. Is Your POSH Compliance Framework Ready to Handle Reality?

5. Is Your POSH Framework Employee-Friendly?

6. Is Your POSH Framework Credible and Legally Defensible?

7. How to Review Your POSH Compliance Framework?

8. Quarter 1 (Q-1) POSH Compliance Checklist

9. POSH Update or Judgement

10. FAQ Corner

11. Blog Corner: Insights You Shouldn’t Miss

From the Editor’s Desk

About the Author

Ms. Maya Sreenivasan

Psychologist, Subject Matter Expert at eLearnPOSH.com

Workplace is Digital, The POSH Framework Must Be Too

For a long time, organisations treated the workplace as a physical space an office, a floor, a cabin. Policies were written with that assumption. Training followed that assumption. Even behaviour was judged within that boundary.

But that boundary no longer exists.

Work happens on WhatsApp. Feedback is given on Teams. Relationships build on Slack. And sometimes, lines are crossed there too.

Most POSH policies still speak the language of physical workplaces. They refer to premises, offices, and visits. They rarely define what acceptable behaviour looks like on messaging platforms, or where familiarity crosses into discomfort in digital conversations.

Digital behaviour is different. It is persistent. It leaves records. It can also blur intent. A message read in isolation may not reflect the full context. A joke may travel beyond its original setting. Patterns may build quietly over time.

There is also a deeper challenge. Digital workplaces remove visibility, but not power dynamics. A manager’s message still carries weight, whether it comes in a boardroom or a private chat. Silence is still interpreted. Discomfort still goes unreported often more easily.

The question is not whether POSH applies to digital spaces. The answer is already clear.

The real question is whether your framework recognises how work actually happens today.

Are employees being trained on digital boundaries – not just what is inappropriate, but what is ambiguous? Late-night messages, tone, persistence, familiarity.

Is your Internal Committee equipped to interpret screenshots, chat trails, and context? With AI tools making it easier to manipulate or generate conversations, verifying authenticity is becoming just as important as interpretation.

Do your policies acknowledge that harassment can happen outside office hours, but within work relationships?

Because if your workplace has already gone digital, your POSH framework cannot remain physical.

POSH Compliance Made Simple (2026)

First quarter of the financial year is one of the most useful points in the year for organisations to revisit POSH compliance. A new financial year has just begun, budgets and priorities are being aligned, and teams are already reviewing how systems will run in the months ahead. That makes this a natural time to pause and ensure that your POSH framework is not only in place, but also current, practical, and easy to rely on.

For many organisations, the foundations are already there. There is a workplace sexual harassment policy, an Internal Committee, some level of awareness, and a general understanding of POSH Act compliance. That is an important starting point. The opportunity in April and May is to build on that foundation and make sure the system continues to support the organisation well through the year. There is still room for thoughtful review and opportunity to amend the mistakes from last year to come back stronger.

A practical way to do this is by assessing your system across four key areas:

Relevance – Does your framework reflect how people work today?
Readiness – Is your system prepared to handle real cases?
Usability – Can employees easily access and use the system?
Consistency – Is the process applied fairly and uniformly across cases?

What does Relevance in POSH Compliance Mean?

Workplace interactions today extend far beyond office premises. Conversations happen across messaging platforms, virtual meetings, travel, and informal settings and across time zones and outside traditional work hours.

A POSH framework that does not reflect these realities can quickly become outdated.

From a practical standpoint, relevance should be reviewed across three areas:

1. POSH Policy

Does the policy explicitly cover digital workplace interactions?
Does it include off-hours communication within work relationships?
Does it extend to interactions during travel, offsites, and virtual meetings?

2. Internal Committee (IC)

Is the IC equipped to interpret digital evidence such as chat trails and screenshots?
Can it assess behaviour in contexts beyond physical workplaces?

3. Training & Awareness

Are employees trained on digital boundaries and grey areas such as tone, persistence, and familiarity?

Is Your POSH Compliance Framework Ready to Handle Reality?

Having a policy and an Internal Committee in place is only the starting point. Readiness is about whether the system can function effectively when a real situation arises.

In practice, cases often involve complexity. hesitation or fear on the part of the complainant, workplace gossip, lack of cooperation from the respondent, a hostile work environment for both parties, the need to maintain strict confidentiality, and questions around its role when a police complaint is also filed. A system that is not prepared for these realities can struggle at critical moments.
So, let’s review the readiness of the POSH Framework across a few critical areas:

1. POSH Policy

Are complaint processes, roles, and responsibilities clearly defined?

2. Internal Committee (IC)

Are members trained to handle real-world complexities, not just procedural steps?
Are they comfortable managing sensitive situations with neutrality and care?

3. Training & Awareness

Do managers know how to respond when concerns are raised informally?
Are IC members regularly trained on inquiry handling, documentation, and confidentiality?

4. Statutory Timelines

Is the POSH system equipped to handle the timelines:

Complaint to be filed within 3 months from the date of (extendable by 3 more months if there is sufficient cause for the delay)
Inquiry to be completed by the IC within 90 days
Findings Report to be submitted by the IC within 10 days
Action to be taken by the employer within 60 days

5. Employer Responsibility

Is the organisation actively supporting the IC with resources, access, and a safe working environment?

Is Your POSH Framework Employee-Friendly?

A Even well-designed systems fail if they are not visible, easily accessible, understandable, or trusted by the employees.

Usability is often where the real gap lies; not in the absence of policies, but in the difficulty of using them.

A usability check should consider:

1. POSH Policy

Is the policy written in simple, clear language?
Does it explain what an employee should do if a concern arises?

2. Internal Committee (IC)

Are IC members visible and approachable?
Are their contact details easily accessible?

3. Training & Awareness

Do employees know where to report and whom to approach?
Do they understand what happens after a complaint is raised?
Are managers equipped to respond appropriately and guide employees to the correct process?

Is-Your-POSH-Framework-Credible-and-Legally-Defensible?

It is not just about having processes in place, but about applying them in a fair and uniform manner across situations.

Inconsistent handling can lead to perceptions of bias, loss of trust, and increased compliance risk.

Consistency should be reviewed across:

1. POSH Policy

Are definitions and expectations clearly laid out?

2. Internal Committee (IC)

Is there a standard inquiry process followed across cases?
Are similar situations assessed using consistent reasoning?

3. System & Documentation

Are documentation formats structured and uniform?
Are timelines followed consistently?
Are decisions supported by clear reasoning and evidence?

4. Confidentiality

Is information shared strictly on a need-to-know basis?
Are records handled with restricted access and discipline?
Do managers avoid informal discussions or parallel handling of cases?

How to Review Your POSH Compliance Framework?

The gaps across relevance, readiness, usability, and consistency rarely exist in isolation. They typically show up across policy, Internal Committee capability, training, and underlying systems.

Addressing them requires structured action across these areas.

1. POSH Policy

A POSH policy should reflect how work actually happens today, not just meet legal requirements. Many policies remain technically compliant but fail to address the realities of new era workplaces, which is where most ambiguity arises.

Expanding the Scope of the Policy

One of the most important updates is to clearly define the scope of the workplace in modern contexts. For instance:

“For the purpose of this Policy, ‘workplace’ includes communication through email, messaging platforms, virtual meetings, and any digital medium arising out of employment, irrespective of time or location.”

This ensures that employees understand that workplace behaviour extends beyond physical office spaces.

It is equally important to address interactions that take place outside regular working hours but are connected to work:

“Sexual harassment may occur outside regular working hours where such interaction arises out of or is connected to employment.”

What conduct should the policy clearly cover?

A policy should go beyond listing obvious forms of harassment and provide clarity on behaviour that is often dismissed as informal or harmless. Employees should not be left guessing whether certain actions are acceptable.

This includes:

Repeated personal comments or remarks on appearance
Intrusive personal questions or suggestive jokes
Unwelcome messages or persistent communication
Sharing inappropriate content through email, chat platforms, or social media

It is important to clarify that such conduct may occur:

During virtual meetings, calls, or messaging
At offsites, work travel, and office events
In interactions involving clients, vendors, or other third parties

Finally, policies should reflect how conduct is assessed in practice:

“The determination of sexual harassment shall consider the nature of the conduct and its impact on the aggrieved individual, regardless of intent.”

How to include confidentiality in policy?

A POSH policy should mandatorily explain confidentiality in a way that employees can understand and rely on. Consider adding a clause that says:

“All information relating to a complaint shall be treated as confidential and shared strictly on a need-to-know basis, in accordance with applicable law.”

To know more about enforcing confidentiality, please check out – Strengthen confidentiality through systems

2. Internal Committee (IC)

The effectiveness of POSH compliance depends heavily on the capability of the Internal Committee.

Organisations can strengthen IC capability through simple, practical steps:

Conduct short workshops using sample chat trails or email scenarios
Run mock inquiries to simulate real-world complexity
Organise IC – HR discussions (brown-bag sessions) to align on approach
Create a simple SOP to guide inquiry structure and documentation

3. Training & Awareness

POSH training is most effective when it is tailored to the roles individuals play within the organisation.

Employees:

Training should focus on real workplace scenarios such as late-night messages from managers, personal comments in team chats, or communication that feels “friendly” but becomes persistent. Using 3 – 4 relatable examples and prompting discussion with questions like, “Would you be comfortable with this?”, helps build practical understanding. Sessions should conclude with clear guidance on what employees should do next if they experience or witness such behaviour.

Managers:

The emphasis should be on first-response handling. They should be trained on what to say when a concern is shared, and equally on what not to do, such as conducting their own investigation, offering personal advice, or dismissing the issue. Providing a simple response script, such as “Thank you for sharing this. Let’s ensure this is handled through the right process,” can help managers respond appropriately. Role-play scenarios, including informal disclosures or concerns involving peers, can further build confidence.

Internal Committee members:

Training should go beyond legal provisions and focus on practical case handling. Workshop-style sessions can include discussion of sample complaints, review of chat or email-based evidence, and exercises on identifying behavioural patterns, asking neutral questions, and structuring findings.

Reinforce reporting channels

Employees often don’t report because they don’t know how or where.

Make reporting unavoidable to miss:

Add IC contact details in 3 fixed places: Employee intranet / portal and Office notice board / digital dashboard
Run quarterly “POSH Reminder Mail”
Add POSH reporting slide in induction decks

POSH Training Checklist

Use simple and clear language in training material
Include real workplace examples that employees can easily relate to
Conduct separate sessions for employees, managers, and Internal Committee members
Hold short refresher sessions during the year instead of depending on one annual session
Explain the reporting process step by step
Share reminders regularly through email, notice boards, or internal platforms
Review from time to time whether employees actually understand the system

4. Structured Systems & Processes

Consistency in POSH compliance depends on having structured systems in place rather than relying on individual judgment. When processes are clearly defined and uniformly followed, organisations are better equipped to handle cases fairly, maintain confidentiality, and demonstrate compliance when required. Two obvious steps can significantly strengthen this. First, standardising documentation by creating templates for key stages such as complaint intake, notices, hearing records, witness statements, and final inquiry reports. Second is establishing a simple SOP for the Internal Committee that maps the end-to-end inquiry workflow.

Strengthen confidentiality through systems

When a concern is raised, details such as the identity of the parties, statements, evidence, and the inquiry process should not be casually discussed or shared beyond those directly involved in handling the matter.

Confidentiality must be ensured through structured systems rather than relying on individual discretion.

Organisations should ensure that such access is limited to authorised members of the Internal Committee.
Case records should be stored securely with controlled access, and informal sharing of information through emails, messages, or discussions should be strictly avoided.
Wherever possible, avoid long email chains for case-related communication. Instead, use controlled folders or data sharing tools to manage and share information.
All documents related to a case should be clearly labelled, such as “Confidential – POSH Matter,” to reinforce the sensitivity of the information.
Communication during the inquiry process should follow defined channels, and care should be taken in how documents are shared, meetings are conducted, and records are maintained.

Introduce periodic case reviews

This can involve reviewing a small number of past cases in an anonymised manner to assess whether timelines were followed, documentation was complete, and decisions were well-reasoned. Such reviews help identify patterns, highlight gaps, and improve the overall quality of the process over time.

Track timelines systematically

Organisations should maintain a simple tracking mechanism to monitor key stages such as receipt of complaint, inquiry duration, report submission, and final action. This can ensure that deadlines are met consistently and reduce the risk of delays.

Quarter 1 (Q-1) POSH Compliance Checklist

Review and update POSH policy to reflect current work realities
Validate IC structure, readiness, and training
Ensure reporting channels are visible and accessible
Conduct role-based POSH training for employees, managers, and IC members
Strengthen confidentiality and documentation practices
Review timelines, past cases, and annual reporting
Align HR and leadership on compliance priorities

Closing Thought

Most organisations already have the basics of POSH compliance in place. This is the right time make that framework stronger, clearer, and easier to rely on.

A thoughtful review now can help ensure that the workplace sexual harassment policy stays relevant, the Internal Committee remains prepared, training becomes more effective, confidentiality stays protected, and the overall system feels more usable through the year. That is what makes a POSH compliance checklist valuable at the start of the financial year.

POSH Update or Judgement:

Dr Mohinder Kumar v. The Chairman, NABARD

Dr Mohinder Kumar, an employee of NABARD, was accused of recording videos of female colleagues at the workplace during office hours. The complaint was examined by NABARD’s Central Complaints Committee (CCC). After inquiry, the CCC concluded that the conduct did not amount to sexual harassment under the POSH Act. Even so, it recommended that NABARD take suitable disciplinary action against him under the NABARD Staff Rules. Acting on that recommendation, the competent authority issued a reprimand. Dr Mohinder Kumar challenged both the recommendation and the reprimand before the Bombay High Court.

Issue and Analysis

The main question before the Court was whether a complaints committee can recommend punishment after finding that sexual harassment is not proved.

The Bombay High Court said it cannot. It noted that the committee had itself found that the conduct did not fall within the definition of sexual harassment under the POSH Act. Once that finding was reached, the committee’s role under the POSH process came to an end.

The Court relied on Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, which says that where the complaint is not proved, the committee must recommend that no action is required to be taken in the matter. This meant that the committee could not, after rejecting the complaint under POSH, still ask the employer to punish the employee through the same route.

The Court also held that NABARD could not simply act on that recommendation without separately considering whether it was legally valid. Although this case involved NABARD’s Central Complaints Committee, the same principle applies to an Internal Committee in a private organisation, since both perform the same role under the POSH law.

Judgement

The Bombay High Court set aside both the CCC’s recommendation and the reprimand order, affirming the reasoning outlined above.

Key Takeaways

A POSH committee cannot recommend punishment after holding that sexual harassment is not proved.
The committee’s role is limited to the POSH Act; it is not a forum for general misconduct.
Any non-POSH misconduct must be dealt with separately under the employer’s disciplinary framework.
HR should independently review whether the IC’s recommendation is legally sustainable before acting on it.
The employer must match the complaint to the correct process: POSH for sexual harassment, disciplinary framework for other misconduct.

Another judgment worth noting →

FAQ Corner

1. If the entity has no female employees, can we appoint an Internal Committee member from the parent company?

Under the POSH law, if your organization does not have a senior female employee, you may appoint a female Presiding Officer (PO) from the parent company.However, this flexibility applies only to the Presiding Officer role. Other Internal Committee members cannot be appointed from outside the organization.

To meet the legal requirement of having at least 50% women in the Internal Committee, you can structure it as follows:

The Presiding Officer (from the parent company) is a woman
The External Member is a woman
The remaining members can be male employees from the organization

Document the reason for appointing a Presiding Officer from the parent company; i.e., the absence of a female employee. This should be recorded in the Board Meeting Minutes before formally constituting the Internal Committee.

2. If the complainant is a vendor employee working at XYZ company, and the respondent is an employee of XYZ company, which IC should conduct the inquiry?

Position under the POSH Act 2013: Under the POSH law, once a complaint is proven, the recommendations are implemented as per the service rules of the employer of the guilty party, whether complainant or respondent. Because of this, the respondent’s employer (XYZ company) remains ultimately responsible for taking action.

Significance of the Sohail Malik vs Union of India judgment: The Sohail Malik case expands the understanding of jurisdiction in cases where the complainant and the respondent are not from different organizations. It clarifies that the complainant also has the right to approach her own Internal Committee, making the process easier and reducing the burden of navigating multiple organizations. The complainant is therefore at liberty to file the complaint either at the respondent’s workplace or with her own employer’s IC.

What the judgment does not change: It is important to clarify that the judgment does not remove the responsibility of the respondent’s organization. The respondent’s IC cannot avoid involvement by citing this judgment. Since the incident occurred at the respondent’s workplace, the organization continues to have a duty to ensure that the matter is appropriately addressed.

Practical approach: The complainant’s IC or the respondent’s IC can conduct the inquiry, depending on where the complaint is filed and how the organizations coordinate.

If the complaint is proven, action against the respondent will be taken by the respondent’s employer (XYZ company) in line with its service rules and policies. If the complaint is found to be false or malicious, any recommendation for action against the complainant should be communicated to the complainant’s employer (vendor company).

Coordination between organizations: The mode of communication and coordination between the two organizations may vary based on practicality and their working relationship. This could be done directly between employers, through the respective Internal Committees, or via any mutually agreed process that ensures clarity and compliance.

Blog Corner: Insights You Shouldn’t Miss

Constitution of the IC: Insights from Legal Cases

The Legality of Anonymous Complaints under POSH Law

Want deeper insights on compliance & workplace training?

Explore our complete collection of expert-written blogs and guides.

View All Blogs

Karnataka POSH Crackdown: Compliance Gaps Companies Must Address

1. What Triggered the Karnataka POSH Crackdown?

2. The Legal Position Was Always Clear

3. The Gap Between Compliance and Functioning

4. Why Karnataka’s Approach Signals a Shift

5. The Role of Employee Awareness and Reporting

6. What Happens When an ICC Fails

7. Why Many Companies Are Still Unprepared

8. The Larger Direction of POSH Enforcement

9. What This Means for Companies Going Forward

10. A Defining Moment for Compliance

In March 2026, the Karnataka State Commission for Women (KSCW) issued a clear and direct warning to employers across the state marking what appears to be the trigger behind Karnataka POSH crackdown companies that have not constituted Internal Committees under the POSH Act, or have non-functional committees, will face action.

This was not framed as a general advisory. It came with an intent to enforce.

The Commission specifically indicated that organizations failing to comply with the requirement of setting up Internal Committees (ICs) would be identified and proceeded against. The message was simple, non-compliance would no longer be overlooked.

For many companies, especially in Bengaluru’s corporate ecosystem, this may sound like a familiar reminder. The POSH Act has been in force since 2013. The requirement to constitute an IC for organizations with ten or more employees is neither new nor ambiguous.

But the significance of this development lies not in the law itself, but in how it is now being treated.

1. What Triggered the Karnataka POSH Crackdown?

The warning came after a review meeting held on March 13, 2026, at the Regional Commissioner’s office in Mysuru, where the Karnataka State Commission for Women examined complaints received from employees across districts.

During a review meeting, the Commission noted that multiple complaints had been filed by employees who either did not have access to an Internal Committee or had little confidence in the system. In one instance cited by the Chairperson Nagalakshmi Choudhary, a woman employee who had consistently been recognised as a top performer for four continuous years was allegedly targeted and harassed after filing a complaint against a colleague, and even faced delays in receiving her salary

Such cases exposed a deeper issue. When these matters were examined by the Commission, several organizations were found to have improperly constituted Internal Committees, missing external members, untrained or inactive IC members, and no documented record of meetings or proceedings.

The scale of the problem also became evident during these reviews as the Commission received around 150 complaints in a single hearing, and in some districts, only a fraction of institutions had formally registered their IC details, pointing to widespread gaps in compliance.

In several cases, complainants approached authorities directly either because they were unaware of any internal mechanism or lacked confidence in it highlighting a clear breakdown in the very systems meant to address such concerns.

2. The Legal Position Was Always Clear

Under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, every organization with ten or more employees is required to constitute an Internal Committee.

The composition is specific. It must be chaired by a senior woman employee, include at least two members from within the organization, and have an external member with experience in issues related to sexual harassment or women’s rights.

The law also assigns clear responsibilities to this committee. It is expected to receive complaints, conduct inquiries, recommend action, and maintain confidentiality throughout the process.

Importantly, the law assumes that this committee is not just present, but capable. It assumes that members understand procedure, that inquiries will be conducted fairly, and that the system will inspire confidence among employees.

What the recent developments in Karnataka highlight is that these assumptions often do not hold in practice.

3. The Gap Between Compliance and Functioning

For a long time, POSH compliance has been approached as a matter of form rather than substance.

Many organizations have done what is technically required. Policies have been drafted. Names have been assigned to committees. Annual trainings have been conducted. On paper, and the requirements appear to be fulfilled.

However, when examined closely, these systems often lack depth that the Law requires.

An Internal Committee may exist, but its members may not have received any formal training on how to conduct an inquiry. An external member may be listed, but may not be involved in proceedings. Meetings may not be held unless a complaint is received. Documentation may be incomplete or inconsistent.

In such situations, the system is not equipped to handle a complaint effectively. It exists, but it is not prepared.

This is the gap that regulators are now focusing on.

4. Why Karnataka’s Approach Signals a Shift

The warning issued by the Karnataka State Commission for Women reflects a broader shift in how compliance is being understood.

Earlier, enforcement was largely reactive. Authorities would step in when a complaint escalated or when a serious lapse came to light.

Now, there is a move toward preventive scrutiny. Instead of waiting for failure, there is an attempt to assess whether systems are capable of functioning in the first place.

This changes the nature of compliance.

Organizations are no longer being assessed only on whether they have complied with the letter of the law. They are increasingly being assessed on whether they have complied with its intent.

This includes questions such as:

Is the Internal Committee active and accessible?
Are its members trained and aware of their responsibilities?
Is there a clear and documented process for handling complaints?
Do employees know how to use the system?

These are not new requirements, but they are now being taken more seriously.

5. The Role of Employee Awareness and Reporting

Another factor contributing to the current focus on enforcement is the increasing awareness among employees.

Over the past few years, there has been a visible shift in how workplace harassment is discussed. Employees are more informed about their rights and more willing to raise concerns. Platforms like SHe-Box have also made it easier to escalate complaints beyond the organization.

When internal mechanisms are weak or inaccessible, employees are more likely to bypass them altogether. This brings the organization under direct scrutiny from external authorities.

In Karnataka, this appears to have been a contributing factor. Complaints reaching the Commission have exposed the inadequacies of internal systems in certain organizations.

This, in turn, has prompted a more assertive response.

6. What Happens When an ICC Fails

When an Internal Committee is not properly constituted or fails to function as required, the consequences can be significant.

From a legal standpoint, any inquiry conducted by such a committee may be challenged. Courts have, in multiple instances, emphasized the importance of proper procedure in POSH cases. If the process is flawed, the findings may not hold.

This can result in:

re-investigation of the complaint
delays in resolution
additional legal exposure for the employer

Beyond the legal implications, there is also an organizational impact.

A weak or non-functional IC undermines employee confidence. It creates uncertainty about whether concerns will be handled fairly. Over time, this can lead to underreporting, disengagement, and a deterioration of workplace culture.

In environments where trust in the system is low, issues often remain unaddressed until they escalate.

7. Why Many Companies Are Still Unprepared

Despite the clarity of the law, many organizations continue to fall short in implementation.

One reason is that POSH compliance has often been treated as a secondary priority. It is seen as a requirement to be fulfilled, rather than a system to be maintained.

Another reason is the lack of expertise. Conducting a fair and legally sound inquiry requires an understanding of both procedural and behavioural aspects. Without proper training, IC members may struggle to handle complaints effectively.

There is also a tendency to underestimate the importance of documentation. In POSH matters, records are critical. They provide evidence of process, demonstrate fairness, and serve as a defence in case of scrutiny.

Without proper documentation, even well-intentioned actions may not stand up to examination.

8. The Larger Direction of POSH Enforcement

The Larger Direction of POSH Enforcement

Regulators and courts are placing greater emphasis on:

procedural integrity
transparency
accountability

There is also an increasing expectation that organizations will take proactive steps to ensure workplace safety, rather than reacting only when issues arise.

This includes:

regular training and awareness programs
periodic review of systems
clear communication of policies and processes

POSH compliance is gradually moving from being an isolated legal requirement to being integrated into broader governance and workplace culture.

9. What This Means for Companies Going Forward

For organizations, the immediate implication is clear. It is no longer sufficient to demonstrate that an Internal Committee exists. There must be evidence that it is functional, informed, and capable.

This requires a shift in approach.

Instead of treating POSH compliance as a one-time exercise, it needs to be viewed as an ongoing process. Committees need to be trained and supported. Systems need to be reviewed and updated. Employees need to be informed and encouraged to engage with the mechanism.

This does not necessarily require complex changes. In many cases, it involves strengthening what already exists.

However, it does require intent.

10. A Defining Moment for Compliance

The warning issued by the Karnataka State Commission for Women marks an important moment in the evolution of POSH enforcement.

It signals that the gap between formal compliance and actual functionality is no longer acceptable. It indicates that authorities are willing to look beyond documentation and examine how systems operate in practice.

For companies, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

The challenge lies in reassessing existing systems and addressing gaps that may have gone unnoticed. The opportunity lies in building mechanisms that are not only compliant, but credible.

Because ultimately, the purpose of the POSH Act is not to create structures. It is to create safe workplaces.

And that purpose can only be fulfilled when those structures are capable of functioning as intended.

POSH Act Updates 2026 in India: SHe-Box & Key Compliance Changes

1. The Shift from POSH Compliance to Real Workplace Effectiveness

2. How SHe-Box Is Changing Workplace Harassment Reporting in India

3. Understanding Internal Committees and Local Committees Under POSH

4. New Government Initiatives: POSH Compliance Checklist, SHe-Box Integration & Training Platforms

5. Why POSH Training and Awareness Are Now Critical for Organisations

6. The Link Between Workplace Safety and Women’s Workforce Participation

7. Why Collaboration Is Key to Strengthening Workplace Safety Systems

8. What Organisations Should Do Next: Key Action Points from the Webinar

9. Final Takeaways: What This Means for Workplace Safety in 2026

If you missed the National Conference on Workplace Safety held on 14 February 2026 at Vigyan Bhawan, here’s everything you need to know without having to sift through multiple sources.

Organised by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the conference brought together policymakers, industry leaders, and compliance professionals to discuss how workplace safety laws, particularly under the POSH Act, are evolving in practice. The full conference can be viewed through this link National Conference on Safety of Women at Workplace | Webcast Services of National Informatics Centre, Government of India

Click here to access the official video from the Ministry’s YouTube channel: National Conference on Safety of Women at Workplace (SHe-Box)

But this wasn’t just another policy discussion.

What stood out was a clear shift in thinking from simply having systems in place to evaluating whether those systems actually work when it matters most.

1. The Shift from POSH Compliance to Real Workplace Effectiveness

For years, organisations have focused on meeting the formal requirements of the POSH Act – drafting policies, setting up Internal Committees (ICs), and conducting awareness sessions.

On paper, most workplaces today appear compliant.

However, the discussions at the conference made it clear that compliance alone is no longer enough. The real focus has now moved to how effectively these mechanisms function in practice.

When a complaint is raised:

Is the process easy to access?
Are employees confident enough to report?
Is the inquiry handled fairly and consistently?

These are the key questions organisations must be well equipped to address when managing employee complaints.

Many participants acknowledged that while structures exist, the strength of implementation varies widely. This gap between formal compliance and actual effectiveness is where organisations are now being increasingly expected to improve

2. How SHe-Box Is Changing Workplace Harassment Reporting in India

One of the most talked-about aspects of the conference was the growing role of the SHe-Box portal.

SHe-Box is a government-backed digital platform that allows women to file workplace sexual harassment complaints online. Once submitted, complaints are forwarded to the relevant Internal Committee or Local Committee and can be tracked through the process.

This introduces a significant shift.

Traditionally, complaint handling has remained internal to organisations. But SHe-Box adds a layer of transparency and accessibility that reduces dependency on internal reporting channels alone.

For employees, this means:

Easier access to reporting
Greater confidence in escalation
Visibility into complaint progress

For organisations, it means increased accountability. Complaint handling is no longer entirely internal; there is now an external system that can track and monitor progress.

The growing adoption of SHe-Box reflects a broader move towards digitised and transparent compliance mechanisms.

3. Understanding Internal Committees and Local Committees Under POSH

The conference also reinforced the importance of the institutional structures that support the POSH framework.

Under the law:

Organisations with 10 or more employees must constitute Internal Committees (ICs)
Local Committees (LCs) operate at the district level for smaller establishments or informal workplaces

Over the years, the expansion of these committees has significantly improved accessibility to complaint resolution systems. More individuals today have formal channels to raise concerns than ever before.

However, their effectiveness still depends heavily on how well they are trained and how consistently procedures are followed.

4. New Government Initiatives: POSH Compliance Checklist, SHe-Box Integration & Training Platforms

The conference also shed light on a few important government initiatives that aim to make workplace safety systems more visible, accessible, and effective in practice.

1. Formal branding of the SHe-Box platform

One of the key developments is the formal branding of the SHe-Box platform. While SHe-Box has been in existence as an online complaint mechanism, the introduction of official branding gives it a stronger identity and presence. This move is significant because it helps position SHe-Box as a trusted, centralised platform for reporting workplace sexual harassment. For employees especially those in smaller organisations or unorganised sectors this visibility can make a real difference in encouraging reporting.

2. voluntary POSH compliance checklist

Another notable initiative is the voluntary POSH compliance checklist, which is intended to serve as a practical self-assessment tool for organisations to evaluate how effectively they are implementing POSH requirements. While the official checklist has not yet been made publicly available, regions such as Delhi and Gurugram have already been using their own versions of compliance checklists. These can offer useful reference points for organisations looking to assess their systems. Both regions have historically taken the lead in strengthening POSH compliance, and it is likely that the checklist to be issued by the Ministry will follow a similar structure and approach.

1. 1. Link for compliance Checklist for Gurugram – CamScanner 12-23-2025 12.32.21
  2. Link for compliance Checklist for New Delhi District – PoSH Act Compliance Checklist (Comprehensive) | District New Delhi, Government of NCT of Delhi | India

3. SHe-Box with the Mission Shakti mobile application

The integration of SHe-Box with the Mission Shakti mobile application further strengthens accessibility. By bringing the complaint mechanism onto a mobile platform that is already designed around women’s safety and support, the government is making it easier for individuals to access help when needed. This integration also connects workplace grievance redressal with a broader ecosystem of support services, creating a more seamless and user-friendly experience.

This app is accessible on both Android and iOS, Through this app users can access a range of services including helpline, legal support, and workplace grievane redresaal via SHe-Box. This means that employees are not limited to internal mechanisms alone but they also have the option to raise complaints through an external, government- backed platform.

It is further important to note that this initative is an add on to the existing complaint mechanism to ensure that POSH related grievances are seriously handled, and this does not replace internal POSH processes or the role of IC. For organisations, the focus is not on adopting the app, but on being prepared for its implications. Complaints filed through SHe-Box may be routed to the employer for action, making it essential for internal systems to be responsive, timely, and aligned with legal expectations.

4. Karmayogi Bharat (iGOT)

The availability of POSH training modules through the Karmayogi Bharat (iGOT) platform is another significant step towards strengthening implementation. These modules are hosted on the government’s iGOT Karmayogi portal, a digital learning platform designed for capacity building through self-paced, online courses. POSH-related modules are available on the platform and provide structured guidance on roles, responsibilities, and procedures, particularly for stakeholders such as Internal Committee members and HR professionals.

The courses are typically modular and self-paced, allowing users to complete them at their convenience, although the exact duration and access details may vary. While many of these modules appear to be accessible upon registration, the platform follows a mixed model, and availability may differ across courses.

In terms of usage, these modules can serve as a valuable learning resource for organisations looking to standardise understanding and build internal capability. However, they should be viewed as supplementary rather than a replacement for organisation-led POSH training. The law still expects employers to conduct workplace-specific awareness sessions and ensure that Internal Committees are adequately trained in the context of their own organisational environment.

Overall, these initiatives reflect a broader intent to move beyond formal compliance and build systems that are more visible, accessible, and effective for employees in real-world situations. Together, these steps indicate a move towards standardisation and continuous improvement in workplace safety practices.

5. Why POSH Training and Awareness Are Now Critical for Organisations

A recurring theme throughout the conference was the importance of training especially for Internal Committee members.

ICs are responsible for:

Conducting inquiries
Evaluating evidence
Ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice

These responsibilities require more than basic awareness.

Without proper training, even well-designed systems can fail in practice. Inconsistent handling of complaints, procedural errors, or lack of sensitivity can undermine trust in the entire process.

At the same time, employee awareness is equally important.

Employees need to understand:

How to file a complaint
What the process involves
What standards of behaviour are expected

When both the committee and employees are well-informed, the system becomes more reliable and credible.

6. The Link Between Workplace Safety and Women’s Workforce Participation

The discussions at the conference placed workplace safety within a much broader context its direct impact on women’s participation in the workforce.

In her keynote address, Union Minister Annapurna Devi emphasised that workplace safety is not just a legal requirement, but a reflection of the country’s commitment to equality and justice. This perspective was reinforced by data shared during the conference, which highlighted a significant rise in women’s labour force participation from around 23% to over 40% in recent years.

As more women enter the workforce, the need for effective safety mechanisms becomes structural rather than optional. Speakers also pointed out that a large proportion of women continue to work in the informal sector, where access to grievance redressal remains limited—making the role of accessible and trustworthy systems even more critical.

Within this context, workplace safety was framed not just as a compliance requirement, but as an enabler of economic participation. Transparent complaint mechanisms, fair processes, and clear accountability help build trust and that trust plays a crucial role in enabling women to enter, remain, and grow in professional environments.

In this sense, strengthening POSH implementation contributes not only to compliance, but to broader goals of inclusion, equity, and economic growth.

7. Why Collaboration Is Key to Strengthening Workplace Safety Systems

Another key takeaway from the conference was the importance of collaboration across stakeholders.

The event brought together representatives from government institutions, private sector organisations, civil society groups, and international bodies. More importantly, these interactions moved beyond high-level discussions and focused on practical challenges in implementation.

Several recurring themes emerged from these exchanges. For instance, many organisations acknowledged that while Internal Committees are formally constituted, their effectiveness varies significantly often due to lack of training, inconsistent processes, or limited understanding of legal requirements. This highlighted the need for capacity-building and standardised training, which initiatives like the Karmayogi platform aim to address.

Another common challenge discussed was low reporting of complaints, not necessarily due to absence of issues, but because of lack of trust in the process, fear of retaliation, or limited awareness of available mechanisms. This is where tools like SHe-Box and its wider integration were seen as important in improving accessibility and confidence.

Participants also pointed out gaps in implementation within the informal sector and smaller organisations, where POSH structures are either weak or non-existent. This reinforced the importance of centralised platforms and government-led interventions to bridge these gaps.

At the same time, organisations shared practices that have worked well such as regular, scenario-based training, clear communication of processes, and visible leadership commitment to workplace safety all of which contribute to building trust among employees.

These discussions made it clear that while there is no one-size-fits-all solution, organisations are facing similar challenges. Learning from these shared experiences allows them to refine their own systems in a more informed and practical way.

As workplace safety frameworks continue to evolve, such collaboration plays a crucial role in ensuring that systems are not only compliant, but also relevant, responsive, and effective in real-world situations.

8. What Organisations Should Do Next: Key Action Points from the Webinar from the Webinar

For organisations that could not attend the webinar, the insights translate into a set of practical next steps. The focus is not just on what needs to be done, but how organisations can begin strengthening their systems.

1. Review how your POSH framework works in practice
Instead of only checking whether policies exist, organisations should conduct a mock walkthrough of the complaint process. For example, ask:

If an employee raises a complaint today, what steps will follow?
How easy is it to access the process?
Are timelines clearly defined and followed?

This helps identify gaps between documented procedures and actual execution.

2. Assess the preparedness of Internal Committee members

Simply constituting an IC is not enough. Organisations should:

Conduct periodic training sessions focused on real case scenarios
Ensure members understand principles of natural justice, confidentiality, and documentation
Evaluate whether IC members feel confident handling complex or sensitive cases

Where gaps exist, external training or standardised modules (such as those on Karmayogi Bharat) can be useful.

3. Strengthen employee awareness and confidence

Awareness is not just about sharing policies once a year. Organisations can:

Use multiple channels induction sessions, internal platforms, posters, and emails

Clearly explain how to report, whom to approach, and what to expect after reporting

Reinforce non-retaliation policies to build trust

The goal is to ensure employees feel safe using the system, not just knowing it exists.

4. Explore alignment with SHe-Box

Organisations should familiarise themselves with how SHe-Box works and:

Inform employees that it exists as an external reporting option
Align internal processes to ensure timely response if a complaint is escalated through SHe-Box
Treat it as a mechanism that enhances transparency and accountability

5. Use the voluntary compliance checklist as a periodic audit tool

Once available, the checklist can be used to:

Conduct quarterly or bi-annual internal audits
Track gaps in areas like IC functioning, training, documentation, and timelines
Create action plans based on identified gaps, rather than treating it as a one-time exercise

9. Final Takeaways: What This Means for Workplace Safety in 2026

The conference made one thing clear workplace safety in India is entering a more mature phase. The focus is no longer on whether organisations have policies in place, but on whether those policies translate into fair, transparent, and effective systems.

Digital platforms like SHe-Box, stronger institutional frameworks, and increased emphasis on training are all shaping this shift.

For organisations, this brings both a challenge and an opportunity.

The challenge lies in moving beyond surface-level compliance. Organisations must now ensure that their systems can withstand real situations handling complaints with consistency, maintaining confidentiality, building trust among employees, and ensuring Internal Committees are truly equipped to manage cases. This requires time, investment, and a shift in mindset from reactive compliance to proactive accountability.

At the same time, it presents an opportunity to build systems that are not only compliant but also credible. Organisations that invest in effective processes, transparent communication, and employee trust will be better positioned to create safe and inclusive workplaces.

Because ultimately, workplace safety is not just about meeting legal requirements it’s about creating environments where people feel safe, heard, and respected.

And that is what truly defines an effective system.

posh compliance

posh compliance

False Complaint Vs Not Provided Compliant

Editor’s Note: Not Proved Is Not the Same as False

Ms. Maya Sreenivasan

Not Proved Is Not the Same as a False POSH Complaint

Legal Lens: What Section 14 Says About a False POSH Complaint

Case Watch: Jharkhand HC on False POSH Complaints

IC Corner: How to Word Findings to Avoid Wrongly Calling It a False POSH Complaint

Where evidence is insufficient:

Where contradiction exists but malice is not proved:

Where Section 14 may apply:

Manager and HR Watchout: Who Really Needs to Know?

What managers should not do is interpret the outcome for the team.

Culture Cue: Why the “False POSH Complaint” Label Matters

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Beyond the Boardroom: POSH, Power and the Expanding Meaning of Workplace Safety

Editorial

Ms. Maya Sreenivasan

Post-Inquiry Culture: What Happens After the Order?

1. Absolute Clarity on Roles

2. When Misconduct is Established: Mitigate Social Cost

3. When Misconduct is Not Established: Prevent Silent Punishment

4. Separate, Structured Closure Conversations

5. Managing the Ecosystem

Introduction

POSH Beyond the Corporate Lens: Sports, Power and Institutional Accountability

The Grey Zone in Everyday Workplace Behaviour

The Joke That Isn’t Funny to Everyone

How Many “Maybes” Mean No?

When People Quietly Avoid One Person

What Should Workplaces Do with the Grey Zone?

TCS Nashik Corner: IC Accessibility Under the Spotlight

Case Spotlight: When Inaction Becomes Risk (TCS Nashik)

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

Sexual Harassment Prevention: 5 Important Judgements

Guest Article

About the Author

Power Dynamics and ‘Consent’ in Hierarchical Workplaces: Rethinking Research Ethics in Higher Education

Introduction

Coercion without threat: Emotional pressure and Quid Pro Quo Behaviour

The Framework of PoSH and Accountable Institutions

Conclusion

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

POSH Compliance Risks 2026 for HR Teams: Essential Guide

From the Editor’s Desk

About the Author

Ms. Maya Sreenivasan

The Cost of Informal Handling

Judgement Analysis: Due Process is Non-Negotiable

Case Context

What the Court Held

Why Sharing the Complaint Matters

What Strong Internal Committees Should Ensure

Case Spotlight: When Inaction Becomes Risk (TCS Nashik)

What Has Been Reported

What TCS Has Officially Stated

Legal Status of the Matter

What Makes This a POSH-Relevant Case

Where the Risk Emerges

What Legal Consequences May Follow

In simple terms:

What’s Changing Globally and Why It Matters in India

What this Means for Organisations in India

The Direction is Clear

FAQs: Practical Guidance for Immediate Clarity

1. What should the IC do if the complaint does not prove sexual harassment, but shows other inappropriate workplace behaviour?

2. What should the IC do if the complaint includes both POSH and non-POSH allegations?

Guest Article

Aniket Swaraj

The Rise of Wearable Surveillance

Why This Is a POSH Concern

The DPDP Act Changes the Conversation

Manufacturing Companies Face Greater Risk

Internal Committees Must Evolve

What Organisations Should Do Now

Key preventive steps include:

1. Update POSH Policies

2. Introduce Wearable Technology Guidelines