Introduction: Compliance on Paper vs Compliance in Practice
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”) was enacted to create safe and dignified workplaces by institutionalising accountability, prevention, and redressal mechanisms. Despite over a decade of statutory clarity and judicial reinforcement, PoSH non-compliance remains widespread across sectors in India.
Many organisations mistakenly treat PoSH compliance as a procedural formality rather than a governance obligation. This approach exposes employers to regulatory penalties, reputational harm, labour disputes, and constitutional scrutiny. This article examines key compliance failures companies continue to make, even when the law is unambiguous, and highlights how courts have consistently interpreted employer responsibility under PoSH jurisprudence.
Improper Constitution of the Internal Committee (IC)
One of the most frequent compliance failures is the incorrect constitution of the Internal Committee under Section 4 of the PoSH Act. Common lapses include appointing untrained members, failing to include an external member with relevant experience, or appointing senior management personnel without gender sensitivity expertise.
Courts have repeatedly held that an improperly constituted IC renders the entire inquiry invalid. In Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. Air France India (2021), the Delhi High Court emphasised that strict adherence to IC composition is mandatory and not directory. Any deviation undermines the legitimacy of the inquiry process.
Many organisations also fail to update IC composition after resignations or transfers, resulting in legally defective proceedings.
Treating PoSH as an HR Issue Instead of a Legal Obligation
Another persistent error is delegating PoSH compliance entirely to HR teams without legal oversight. While HR plays an operational role, PoSH compliance is a statutory duty imposed on the employer, not merely an internal policy matter.
In Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court underscored that PoSH enforcement flows from Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, making workplace safety a fundamental right issue. Employers cannot dilute responsibility by internal delegation or informal resolution mechanisms.
Failure to appreciate this legal character often leads to procedural shortcuts, undocumented settlements, or suppression of complaints—each of which constitutes statutory non-compliance.
Inadequate or Token PoSH Training Programs
While many companies conduct annual PoSH training, the quality and depth of such programmes are often superficial. Generic presentations, outdated content, or one-time sessions without refresher modules fail to meet the preventive mandate under Section 19 of the PoSH Act.
Courts increasingly view training as a substantive compliance obligation. In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), the Supreme Court directed governments and employers to ensure meaningful PoSH awareness, noting that ignorance of complaint mechanisms continues to silence victims.
Effective training must be role-specific, contextual, documented, and periodically updated, especially for IC members and senior leadership.
Mishandling Complaints Through Informal or Parallel Processes
Employers often attempt to resolve complaints informally through mediation, managerial intervention, or exit negotiations—sometimes without the complainant’s informed consent. This practice directly violates Section 10 of the PoSH Act, which permits conciliation only at the request of the aggrieved woman and prohibits monetary settlements.
In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999), the Supreme Court held that workplace sexual harassment is a serious violation of service discipline and cannot be trivialised through informal handling. Any complaint that meets the statutory definition must be addressed strictly through the IC process.
Parallel disciplinary mechanisms outside PoSH dilute procedural fairness and expose employers to judicial scrutiny.
Breach of Confidentiality Obligations
Section 16 of the PoSH Act imposes strict confidentiality obligations relating to the identity of parties, witnesses, and inquiry proceedings. Despite this, companies often circulate internal emails, disclose details during management meetings, or allow reputational leaks.
Such breaches not only attract penalties under Section 17 but also compromise the safety and dignity of the complainant. In P v. A & Others (Karnataka High Court, 2022), the Court reiterated that confidentiality is integral to effective redressal and any disclosure undermines the legislative intent of PoSH.
Employers must institute strict data protection and access controls around PoSH records.
Delayed Inquiries and Non-Adherence to Timelines
The PoSH Act prescribes specific timelines—90 days for inquiry completion and 60 days for implementation of recommendations. Delays are often justified on grounds of workload, unavailability of members, or internal approvals.
Courts have rejected such explanations. In Dr. Punita K. Sodhi v. Union of India (2010), the Delhi High Court held that delayed justice in harassment cases amounts to denial of justice, exacerbating workplace trauma.
Failure to adhere to timelines weakens inquiry outcomes and increases the likelihood of judicial intervention.
Failure to File Annual PoSH Reports
Many companies overlook the mandatory requirement to file annual PoSH reports with the District Officer under Section 21. This lapse is often discovered during audits, funding rounds, or labour inspections.
Non-filing attracts monetary penalties and can lead to cancellation of business licences under Section 26. Increasingly, investors and multinational clients treat PoSH reporting as a key ESG and governance metric, making this omission commercially risky.
Ignoring Coverage of Extended Workplace and Third Parties
Organisations frequently fail to recognise that PoSH applies beyond physical office premises. The definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o) includes remote work, client sites, transportation, and virtual interactions.
In Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India (2008), the Delhi High Court affirmed that harassment occurring during work-related interactions outside office premises still attracts employer liability.
Failure to extend PoSH safeguards to consultants, interns, gig workers, and remote teams is a significant compliance blind spot.
Conclusion: From Formality to Institutional Accountability
PoSH compliance is not a checklist exercise but an ongoing governance responsibility. Judicial interpretation has consistently reinforced that employers bear primary accountability for prevention, redressal, and workplace culture.
Organisations that continue to make these compliance errors risk not only statutory penalties but also long-term reputational and operational consequences. A legally robust PoSH framework—backed by trained ICs, procedural discipline, and leadership commitment—is no longer optional but essential for sustainable business operations in India.
