Manorama Santosh
24 Aug 2026 2 min read
Sexual harassment at the workplace is often understood only through the lens of complaints and inquiries. However, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) adopts a broader approach. Its objective is not merely to provide a remedy after an incident occurs, but also to create a workplace culture where prevention, awareness, fairness and accountability operate together.
The POSH Act defines sexual harassment broadly to include unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Importantly, the law is concerned with the impact and unwelcome nature of conduct, rather than merely whether the alleged conduct was intended as a “joke” or was perceived by the respondent as harmless. This makes workplace sensitisation particularly significant.
For workplaces having ten or more employees, Section 4 requires the employer to constitute an Internal Committee (IC). The Committee must have a senior woman as the Presiding Officer, employee members with appropriate commitment, experience or legal knowledge, and an external member familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment. At least half of the nominated members must be women.
But merely constituting an IC is not sufficient compliance. Section 19 places affirmative duties on employers: maintaining a safe working environment, displaying relevant information, conducting regular awareness programmes and providing necessary facilities to the Committee. Thus, POSH compliance is fundamentally a preventive responsibility, not a paperwork exercise.
The inquiry process equally demands procedural fairness. A complaint is ordinarily required to be made within three months of the incident, subject to the statutory extension permitted in appropriate circumstances. The IC is required to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the Act and complete it within ninety days. The parties must be given an opportunity to present their respective cases, making principles of natural justice central to a credible POSH process.
Another frequently overlooked safeguard is confidentiality. Section 16 prohibits disclosure of the contents of the complaint, identities of the parties and witnesses, and information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings. Confidentiality protects the dignity of the complainant, respondent and witnesses and prevents an inquiry from becoming a workplace trial by gossip or social media.
The law also recognizes that protection may sometimes be required during the pendency of an inquiry. Section 12 enables the IC to recommend interim measures in appropriate circumstances, thereby preventing the process itself from exposing the complainant to further difficulty.
Ultimately, effective POSH compliance should be measured not by the number of policies displayed on office walls, but by whether employees understand their rights, whether the IC functions independently and competently, whether inquiries are conducted fairly, and whether confidentiality is respected.
The real success of POSH lies in creating a workplace where prevention is proactive, complaints are taken seriously, inquiries are impartial, and dignity remains the foundation of every decision. The POSH Act is therefore not merely a redressal mechanism; it is a framework for building safer, more accountable and legally responsible workplaces.
Advocate, M.P. High Court & District Courts, Indore
Sign in to join the discussion.
The natural law theory may be considered the most durable foundation of jurisprudence, allowing one to look at the validity, morality, and purpose of the positive law. As suggested by Italian jurist Giorgio Del Vecchio, natural law is a system of high principles like morality, justice, ethics, right reason, equality, and freedom as a constant striving for justice.
The law can protect property, enforce obligations, and provide remedies for legal wrongs. But it cannot force someone to love another person. A promise may begin in the heart, but only certain promises can find their way into the courtroom. Perhaps that is where the law wisely draws its line: it can regulate the legal consequences of love, but it cannot regulate love itself.
