Tata Consultancy Services, as part of the Tata Group, has long been regarded as an organization built on strong values such as integrity, responsibility, excellence, unity, and a commitment to doing business ethically. These principles have shaped its reputation not just in India but globally, and have helped create a culture that emphasizes respect for individuals, professionalism, and accountability. The Tata brand, in particular, carries a legacy of trust and credibility that many organizations aspire to.
At the same time, cases like the one reported in Nashik highlight an important reality. Even organizations with strong value systems can face gaps in implementation at the ground level. These gaps do not necessarily define the organization’s values, but they do indicate the need to strengthen how those values are translated into everyday practice.
It raises an important question: what happens when the Internal Committee itself does not function as per the intent of the law?
While the POSH Act in India clearly requires organizations to constitute and ensure the proper functioning of Internal Committees, real workplace situations often reveal gaps. These may include procedural lapses or even a lack of timely action. For organizations and consultants, this is a reminder to look beyond basic compliance and focus on building systems that ensure accountability, are accessible to employees, and are supported by a strong and respectful workplace culture.
- When the IC does not Act: What are the alternatives?
The POSH framework in India positions the Internal Committee as the primary and most trusted mechanism for addressing complaints of workplace sexual harassment. However, concerns arise when the Internal Committee is inactive, biased, not properly constituted, or delays taking action. In such situations, the complainant may be left feeling unsupported and vulnerable.
Alternatives available to the complainant include:
> Approaching the Local Committee (LC) at the district level
> Escalating internally to senior leadership or board-level ethics committees
> Filing a formal legal complaint
> Seeking support from external consultants or NGOs
That said, these options are often not widely known or easily accessible. It is the responsibility of organizations to clearly communicate these pathways and ensure that employees are aware of their rights and available support systems, rather than waiting for a situation to escalate.
- The complexity of direct vs indirect reporting
One of the most overlooked aspects in such cases is the distinction between direct and indirect reporting. Direct reporting refers to situations where the complainant formally approaches the Internal Committee. Indirect reporting, on the other hand, is when information comes through a third party such as a manager, HR, a colleague, or even through anonymous channels.
In many situations similar to the Nashik case, early warning signs often emerge through indirect reporting. However, these are frequently treated as informal inputs and not acted upon.
Our perspective:
> Indirect reporting should trigger a preliminary responsibility, not be ignored
> Organizations must define clear protocols on when such disclosures become actionable
> Managers and HR must be trained to recognize and escalate responsibly
- When the complainant shares, but Does not file a complaint
A particularly sensitive situation arises when a complainant chooses to share their experience but does not wish to file a formal complaint. This is not uncommon in Indian workplaces and requires careful handling.
There are several reasons why complainants may hesitate. These may include fear of retaliation or impact on their career, lack of trust in the neutrality of the Internal Committee, emotional readiness to go through a formal process, and concerns around confidentiality.
What should organizations do?
> Respect autonomy. Avoid forcing a formal complaint
> Provide supportive measures (counseling, safety planning, role adjustments)
> Maintain confidential documentation
> Conduct a risk assessment, especially if others may be impacted
> Consider suo motu inquiry in serious cases
> Ignoring such disclosures can be as harmful as handling them incorrectly, as it weakens trust in the system and may allow issues to persist.
- Power, Silence, and the Myth of “Untouchable” Individuals
A recurring and uncomfortable reality in many organizations is the belief that some individuals are too powerful to be questioned, and that it is safer to remain silent. This perception, whether real or assumed, can significantly weaken the effectiveness of the POSH framework.
When employees feel that senior leaders, high performers, or influential individuals are beyond scrutiny, that complaints against them may not be taken seriously, or that speaking up could negatively impact their careers, the system becomes difficult to access in practice.
This is where organizations must take a firm stand:
> No one is above accountability, hierarchy cannot dilute due process
> Cases involving senior or influential individuals should trigger heightened governance, possibly including external IC members or independent oversight
> Leadership must visibly demonstrate zero tolerance, even at the top
> Silence in such cases is not just individual hesitation, it is often a reflection of systemic failure.
- IC Accountability: Beyond Constitution to Consistency
The Nashik case highlights an important concern. Internal Committees may be formally constituted, but their effectiveness in practice can vary, especially in organizations with multiple locations.
Some common gaps include differences in how cases are handled across branches, insufficient training of IC members, deviations from prescribed procedures, and excessive dependence on HR without independent application of judgment.
Key accountability measures:
> Standardized SOPs across locations
> Periodic IC audits and mock drills
> Mandatory refresher training
> External oversight or third-party audits
> Defined metrics for IC effectiveness
> Consistency directly impacts credibility and trust.
- The Missing Piece: Organizational Culture Audits
Compliance alone is not enough to prevent cases like the Nashik incident. The underlying issue often lies in the organizational culture. A system that only reacts after a complaint is filed cannot make up for a workplace where employees feel unsafe, unheard, or hesitant to speak up.
Recommendation: Annual Cultural Study by HR
> Anonymous surveys on:
– Psychological safety
– Trust in reporting mechanisms
– Perception of fairness
> Segmented insights across locations, roles, and demographics
> Identification of high-risk pockets
> Action plans linked to leadership accountability
> This shifts organizations from reactive compliance to proactive prevention.
The Real Question
The Nashik case is not an anomaly—it is a signal. A signal that a mechanisms without accountability fail, Processes without trust remain unused and a culture ultimately determines whether systems work.
For organizations, the real question is: “Do employees believe the system will protect them—even against the most powerful?”
If the answer is uncertain, the work is far from done.