"Having a POSH policy on paper is not enough—true compliance lies in sustained practice, not just written procedure."
Introduction
Sexual harassment at the workplace is not only a grave violation of an individual's dignity but also a threat to the integrity and culture of any organisation. In India, the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013—commonly known as the POSH Act—marked a transformative moment in Indian law by codifying protections for women and formalising the redressal mechanism within the workplace.
Yet, a decade after its enactment, implantation across sectors remains inconsistent and, at times, merely symbolic. The goal of the article is to move the conversation from box-ticking compliance to cultivating workplace cultures that are genuinely safe, inclusive and legally sound. It also aims to raise awareness among employers and employees alike about their obligations and rights under the law while underlying the consequences of superficial adherence.
What Does POSH Compliance Entail?
To meet the letter and spirit of law, every organization with ten (10) or more employees must ensure the following baseline compliance measures:
- Formation of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in accordance with the Act, including the mandatory external member with expertise in women's rights or social justice.
- Frame and Circulate a detailed POSH policy
- Conducting training sessions for employees and ICC members.
- Filing the annual report with the District Officer.
- Display of the policy and ICC contact information prominently.
Where Most Employers Fall Short?
Despite widespread awareness of the Act, several employers falter in execution. The most frequent areas of non-compliance include:
- Improper Constitution of the ICC: Many employers/organizations either omit the legally mandated external member or fail to ensure adequate gender representation. A poorly constituted ICC risks invalidating its inquiries and findings altogether.
- Training Gaps: One-off or token training sessions are not enough. The law expects periodic and customized training, not mere compliance rituals.
- Ignoring Informal Complaints: Failing to document or act on informal complaints may escalate the issue legally and culturally.
- Confidentiality Lapses: Investigation outcomes are casually discussed or shared, violating privacy protections which is in clear violation of the strict confidentiality clauses under Section 16 of the Act. This not only deters future complaints but also exposes the organization to legal action.
- Missing Vendor and Remote Employee Coverage: Remote workers, consultants, and vendors are often excluded from coverage.
Legal and Reputational Risks: Why Superficial POSH Compliance Is Not an Option.
Non-compliance with the POSH Act, 2013, is no longer seen as a minor administrative lapse—it is increasingly treated by courts and regulators as a serious violation of workplace rights and constitutional guarantees. For law firms and legal professionals advising corporate clients, understanding and communicating these risks is not only part of risk mitigation but also a demonstration of professional diligence.
1. Statutory Penalties Under the POSH Act
Failure to comply with key provisions of the POSH Act—such as not forming an Internal Committee (IC), omitting annual report filing, or failing to act on complaints—can attract:
- Monetary fines up to ₹50,000 for the first offence
- Cancellation of business licenses or registrations upon repeated violations
- Disqualification of IC members and questioning of prior inquiries or resolutions
These penalties are enforceable under Sections 26–28 of the POSH Act and can escalate if the organisation is found to have wilfully ignored compliance responsibilities.
2. Judicial Scrutiny and its Consequences
The courts in India have made it clear that mere tokenism in compliance will not suffice. In Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India [(2013) 1 SCC 297], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that ineffective implementation of Vishaka Guidelines and the POSH law amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21.
Recent High Court judgments have:
- Invalidated IC findings for lack of quorum or improper constitution
- Directed re-investigation of complaints where ICs lacked neutrality
- Imposed costs on employers for procedural lapses
This calls for a pivotal role of the legal advisors to help organisations avoid litigation, reputational loss, and judicial rebuke.
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Lapses in POSH compliance can open the organisation and its officers to:
- Tortious liability for mental harassment or reputational harm
- Criminal prosecution under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 the Sections are 71, 79 and 56 (earlier under Sections 354, 509, 500 of IPC) if conduct is serious or retaliatory.
- Writ petitions or PILs alleging systemic discrimination or rights violations
Firms that advise on HR policies or employment law can be held accountable for misguiding clients if their compliance frameworks are found wanting.
4. Erosion of Corporate Credibility
Legal advisors are also brand custodians. Clients that falter on POSH compliance risk:
- Negative media coverage and reputational backlash
- Loss of partnerships with global entities that require strong ESG and DEI practices
- Diminished confidence from boards, investors, and regulatory bodies
Such risks often spill over to the legal advisors who either failed to flag compliance gaps or couldn't implement a robust framework in time.
5. Loss of Employee Trust and Future Claims
A workplace perceived as dismissive of sexual harassment concerns can result in:
- High attrition, especially among women professionals
- Anonymous whistleblower complaints to regulators or ombuds offices
- Future lawsuits based on hostile workplace allegations
From a legal risk perspective, the cost of poor compliance is not just monetary, it also includes long-term liability, institutional memory damage, and cultural toxicity that even the best PR cannot undo.
Strengthening Compliance: Strategic Recommendations
To set-up POSH as a living, breathing workplace norm, organizations must take proactive, structured steps:
- Conduct POSH audits bi-annually.
- Appoint neutral, trained ICC members from diverse backgrounds.
- Track and review even informal complaints.
- Include vendors, interns, and remote workers in coverage.
- Ensure confidentiality protocols are digitally and physically enforced.
Conclusion
The true test of POSH compliance lies not in paperwork but in practice. A mere policy or a hastily formed committee will not suffice. Organisations must demonstrate a sustained, visible, and values-driven commitment to safety, dignity, and equality at work. Ensuring compliance with the POSH Act is not merely a legal requirement, instead, it is a critical step toward fostering a safe, respectful, and inclusive workplace.
While many organisations may believe that issuing a policy or forming a committee is sufficient, true compliance demands sustained effort, training, and a culture of accountability. The common pitfalls discussed, ranging from poorly constituted Internal Committees to lack of employee sensitisation, can severely compromise the integrity and effectiveness of the POSH mechanism.
Organisations must go beyond symbolic measures. They must invest in regular training, build trust in reporting mechanisms, uphold confidentiality, and demonstrate a genuine commitment to gender equity. A robust POSH framework not only shields employers from legal liabilities but also enhances their reputation, productivity, and employee morale. In a world increasingly driven by values and transparency, treating POSH compliance as a dynamic, living process is not just good law, it's good business. Build systems that empower, protect, and uplift. Not just because the law mandates it but because your people deserve it.
Here are some key legal case references to know its legal grounding and practical relevance:
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Still the foundational precedent; its principles are embedded in the POSH Act, 2013.
- Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012) – Remains the leading case on state and institutional accountability under Vishaka Guidelines.
- Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. CAG (2008) – Frequently cited in context of what constitutes a "workplace", especially important in the hybrid/remote era.
- Dr. Punita K. Sodhi v. UOI (2010) – Remains a key authority on procedural fairness in ICC proceedings.
- Global Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Payal Benipal (2023) – A recent and widely referenced Delhi High Court ruling on ICC composition and procedural irregularities. It strengthens the legal expectation of compliance with the POSH framework.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
