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.