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.

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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

> The organisation (Not the IC) should consider initiating a 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The post The Nashik Case – Rethinking accountability and alternatives first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

A closer look at what’s really broken

Your organisation probably has an Internal Committee for POSH complaints. But does anyone actually know who’s on it, what it does, or whether they can trust it? That gap is where workplaces fail.

For most organisations, setting up an Internal Committee for sexual harassment feels like the finish line, get the names on a notice board, run an annual awareness session, file the paperwork, and move on. What gets missed entirely is the part that actually matters: whether employees know the IC exists, whether they believe it will be fair, and whether they trust it enough to walk through that door when something goes wrong. 

That gap between having an IC and having one that helps the organisation is exactly what this piece unpacks, drawing from a deep dive conversation on the Metis Posh Radio where POSH experts break down why IC Committees are critical for organisational governance and why, despite being legally mandated, most employees still don’t trust them.

METIS POSH RADIO – Listen to the full conversation here: 

METIS POSH ON YOUTUBE  – Watch our full conversation here: 

The IC isn’t just a compliance box. It serves 3 functions that directly affect the health of an organisation. 

1. The first is risk management, because sexual harassment cases that bypass proper process almost always become legal risks, and legal risks get expensive and public very quickly. 
2. The second is cost, because when a high performer leaves the organisation due to a lack of a functional mechanism to address harassment, the business absorbs recruiting costs, training time, and continuity disruptions that were entirely avoidable. 
3. The third is ethical governance, and this is the one most organisations underestimate. The IC is designed to function as a custodian of ethics, operating with the powers of a civil court, conducting proper inquiries, and ensuring that both parties receive a fair hearing. When companies skip the process and let managers handle complaints informally, the investigation is rarely thorough, confidentiality breaks down almost immediately, and the case can still go legal, with the organisation having nothing to show for its handling of the situation.

Making Your IC Visible and Accessible 

Where organisations consistently fall short is in making their IC easily visible and accessible. Many organisations find it embarrassing to display IC information prominently, as though acknowledging that harassment can occur is itself a problem. So, the names go on a corner notice board, the email IDs never get updated, and when an employee actually needs to reach someone, they discover the phone number rings a person who left the company two years ago. That kind of neglect communicates something very specific: the organisation hasn’t thought about this in a long time.

Visibility also means making IC members known as people rather than just names on a list. When employees have seen IC members at town halls or during awareness sessions, the barrier to approaching them drops significantly. Nobody wants to walk up to a complete stranger and share something deeply personal and embarrassing. Even a basic introduction, just having seen someone’s face before, makes the difference between an employee filing a complaint and an employee quietly deciding to leave.

The Trust Problem Goes Deeper Than Structure

An IC can be properly constituted and still not be trusted, because trust is built through behaviour, not paperwork. The structural side matters: including an external member, ensuring no reporting relationships exist between IC members and the parties involved, and reconstituting the committee immediately if bias surfaces during an inquiry rather than pushing through and hoping for the best. But equally important is the everyday conduct of IC members long before any complaint is filed. If IC members are known for dismissing concerns, or if their own behaviour in the workplace is questionable, employees will not go to them. The IC’s daily credibility is the organisation’s clearest signal about whether the process is real.

Confidentiality, Retaliation, and What They Cost

The Indian National Bar Association (INBA) national survey on POSH found that half of the women who face sexual harassment don’t report it, and concerns about confidentiality are a significant reason. In practice, confidentiality breaks down early and often: managers pass information upward, well-meaning colleagues start asking questions, and before the IC has even convened, the entire organisation knows. Reputations get damaged on the basis of rumour rather than due process, and the next person who experiences something decides it isn’t worth reporting.

Retaliation follows the same pattern of quiet damage: leaving someone out of regular meetings, shifting how their work gets reviewed, or simply making the workplace uncomfortable enough that leaving feels easier than staying. The IC is mandated to protect against this, with tools like interim relief, physical separation of parties, and removal of a respondent’s authority over the complainant during the inquiry. Making clear that retaliation is punishable isn’t optional; it’s part of what gives the process its integrity.

A functional IC is visible, structurally sound, behaviorally credible, and genuinely protective of both parties throughout the process. That is not an unreachable standard. But it does require organisations to stop treating the IC as a compliance exercise and start treating it as what it actually is: the clearest signal they can send about whether their workplace is a safe place to work in.

For Sales and collaboration: contact@posh.metisindia.com

Follow us:

Instagram: instagram.com/metisposh
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/metisposh
X: @metisposh
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@metisposh
Radio: https://posh.metisindia.com/metis-posh-radio/
Website: www.posh.metisindia.com
Phone: +91-95355 66588

The post When the IC Exists, But People Don’t Trust It first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

The post Office Parties & Professional Boundaries first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

Two significant Bills were introduced in the Rajya Sabha on December 5, 2025, proposing fundamental changes to the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The intent is clear: to make the law more inclusive, accessible, and stringent in its enforcement.

Key Changes Proposed Across Both Bills

1. Broader Scope and Gender Neutrality – One Bill proposes replacing the term “women” with “persons” throughout the Act.

• Gender-neutral protection:
  The Act’s coverage would be expanded to protect persons of all genders from sexual harassment at the workplace. This aligns with constitutional principles and the NALSA judgment.
• Inclusion of gig and platform workers:
  The definitions of “employee” and “employer” would explicitly include gig and platform workers.
• Internal Committee representation:
  Where the complainant is of a gender other than female, an additional representative of that gender must be nominated to the Internal Committee or Local Committee.

2. Strengthening Complainant Rights and Enforcement – The second Bill focuses on improving procedures, timelines, and accessibility.

• Extended complaint filing period:
  The time limit for filing a complaint would be extended from 3 months to 1 year.
• Faster implementation of IC recommendations:
  Employers or District Officers must act on Internal Committee recommendations within 30 days, reduced from the earlier 60-day timeline.
• Right to replace IC/LC members:
  A complainant may request the replacement of any committee member if trust or confidence is lost during the inquiry.
• Stricter confidentiality provisions:
  Confidentiality obligations are strengthened, with penalties for disclosure of the complainant’s identity or inquiry details, including removal of the IC/LC member responsible for the breach.
• Higher penalties for employers:
  The penalty for non-compliance would increase from ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh.
• More inclusive Local Committees:
  Local Committees must include representation from the informal sector (including domestic work, construction, gig work, etc.) to improve access to justice.

Why This Matters

These proposed amendments represent a significant step toward creating a truly inclusive and equitable legal framework for Indian workplaces. They also reinforce the importance of robust, accessible, and time-bound mechanisms for addressing workplace sexual harassment.

The post Proposed amendments to the POSH Act. 2013 first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

What “no material evidence” means

Material evidence means something tangible that supports or refutes the allegation: a recording, a document, or a witness who saw the act. If you have none of that, it means you must base your review on what is available: statements, context, circumstances, behaviour, and reliability. Sexual harassment cases and other workplace complaints often face this challenge, as many incidents occur in private and lack independent documentation

Starting with transparency

When you begin the enquiry, note what evidence was sought and what was not found. For example: “No CCTV footage exists of the relevant location on the date in question,” or “No independent witness presented who saw the interaction.” This is not a finding of guilt or innocence; it simply documents what the Committee has already done. That clarity builds trust in the process.

Looking beyond the “documented proof”

In the absence of direct proof, focus on relevant facts and circumstantial indicators. These might include behavioural patterns (has the respondent faced similar complaints?), digital traces (access logs, timestamps), and changes in the complainant’s behaviour. These don’t guarantee the finding, but they allow your Committee to make informed observations.

The role of fairness in your inquiry

Fairness remains the bedrock. Even without strong evidence, you must treat both parties with respect. Offer the complainant and respondent equal opportunity to present their account. Ask honest questions, not leading ones. Your Committee’s neutrality should be clear in how you conduct the enquiry and record its progress. A well-documented, impartial process is critical.

Evaluating what you can conclude

Here, a key principle comes into play — the preponderance of probability. This principle means you are not seeking proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” as done in criminal courts, but rather asking: Is it more likely that the alleged event occurred? If the available information slightly favours the complainant, you can find the allegation proved. If things are evenly balanced, you must say the allegation is not proved. This is because civil investigations function on this standard of “just over 50%” rather than absolute certainty.

Communicating the outcome

How you frame the conclusion is important. Inform both parties privately, use clear and respectful language, and avoid implying blame. For the complainant, emphasise that a finding of “not proved” is not the same as a conclusion of “false”. For the respondent, maintain the presumption of fairness. Remind both parties of confidentiality obligations and protections against retaliation.

Why every such case matters

Even when you don’t find material evidence, the enquiry has value. You demonstrate that the organisation takes complaints seriously, conducts fair reviews, and learns from what happened. The absence of evidence might signal deeper gaps — say, in how behaviours are documented or how records are maintained. As a result, your Internal Committee can recommend improvements to policy, training, record-keeping or supervision.

POSH case without material evidence is still valid

Managing a case without material evidence takes care, discipline and empathy. Your role as an IC member is to ensure the process is fair, transparent, and reasoned — and to base your outcome on whether it is more likely than not that the incident occurred. The principle of the preponderance of probabilities gives you the framework; your careful inquiry gives the process legitimacy. In doing so, you help your organisation reinforce what truly matters: respectful, safe workplaces where allegations are heard, considered and acted upon with integrity.

POSH Cases and the Indian Evidence Act

While inquiries under the POSH Act, 2013, do not fall under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the principles of natural justice and reasoned decision-making still apply. The Internal Committee (IC) is not bound by the strict technical rules of evidence that apply in a court of law. However, given that the POSH Act confers certain powers of a civil court on the Committee, such as summoning witnesses, requiring document production, and examining evidence on oath, the quality and reliability of evidence considered should be such that it would be acceptable and defensible in a court of law if ever challenged.

In practice, this means that while the IC can adopt a flexible, inquiry-based approach, it must still rely on credible, relevant, and verifiable material when forming conclusions. The focus should be on ensuring procedural fairness, transparency, and documentation so that the Committee’s findings stand up to judicial or appellate scrutiny if required.

Reach out to us to train your IC on handling different POSH case scenarios: contact@posh.metisindia.com

The post What happens when there is no material evidence? first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

The new notification under the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 makes it mandatory for all public and private companies to disclose specific details related to workplace sexual harassment in their financial statement filings.

What the notification covers:

Effective 14th July 2025, every registered company must report the following in its Director’s Report:
• Number of sexual harassment complaints received during the year
• Number of complaints disposed of during the year
• Number of cases pending for more than 90 days

These changes are aimed at bringing a new level of transparency and accountability to POSH compliance in India.

The post New POSH Mandates You Shouldn’t Miss first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

Key supporting policies include:

Office Transportation Policy
A formal office commute policy directly strengthens women’s workplace safety. It empowers more women to continue their careers by addressing:

• Safety protocols for company-provided transport
• Reporting procedures for safety concerns
• Emergency and exception guidelines

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
A DEI policy ensures women are treated fairly and equitably at work. They typically focus on:

• Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) for professional growth and well-being
• Gender-balanced, bias-free hiring practices
• Leadership training for women

Inclusive and Respectful Communication
Many organisations set clear communication guidelines to ensure respectful and inclusive interactions among employees. This includes:

• Avoiding sexist language, casual remarks, or offensive jokes
• Email and chat etiquette across internal and external networks

Social Media & External Communication
As the lines blur between physical and virtual workplaces, companies have implemented policies to protect women from online harassment. These typically cover:

• Conduct on professional networks and forums
• Guardrails against online harassment
• Rules around sharing colleague information on social media

Protecting Whistleblowers
The Whistleblower Policy supports bystander intervention and safe reporting. It ensures:

• An independent committee is set up to handle complaints
• Anonymous reporting channels
• Protection against retaliation

Workplace Dress Code
A professional dress code policy ensures that attire at the workplace is respectful and appropriate. It governs:

• Dress code for office and factory settings
• Cultural sensitivity across diverse workforces

Conduct at Informal Office Gatherings
The Code of Conduct often extends to informal events like offsites and parties to maintain professional standards by:

• Setting expectations for respectful behaviour and consequences of misconduct
• Encouraging bystander intervention

Workplace Relationships
The Code of Conduct may set down rules for office relationships to avoid conflicts of interest, favouritism, or harassment. These ensure:

• Disclosure of a relationship between employees under the same reporting manager
• Rules for supervisor-subordinate relationships
• Protection from retaliation if relationships end

Third-Party Engagement Policy
Vendors, contractors, and consultants are part of the extended workplace. Ensuring they’re aware of POSH norms helps maintain a consistent culture of safety and respect It broadly covers:

• POSH sessions during vendor onboarding
• Including POSH compliance clauses in contracts
• Clear reporting channels for misconduct

These policies work together with the anti-sexual harassment policy to create a work environment where women can thrive. At Metis, we partner with organisations to align these supporting policies with their POSH framework, ensuring that compliance leads to lasting cultural change.

The post Policies and practices that support workplace safety first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

But this case opened the door to something much bigger.

While hearing the case, the Court also turned its attention to how the POSH Act has been implemented across the country.

Why Did the Supreme Court Take Action?

Reports submitted by learned lawyers revealed a concerning pattern: even after a decade, many states and union territories had not fully complied with the POSH Act.

There were no committees in some districts, no data on implementation, and no clear process for redressal. What began as one case turned into a nationwide compliance check.

Here’s What the Supreme Court Ordered

To fix the gaps, the Court issued a set of directives that all States and UTs must now act upon:

• Every district must have a fully functional Local Complaint Committee
• Government departments and PSUs must set up Internal Committees
• States and UTs must appoint District Officers and make their details public
• POSH implementation data must be published for transparency
• Ensure proper training for all members of LCCs and ICs

What This Means for Workplaces Across India

This judgment has sent ripples across organisations and administrations nationwide. With POSH compliance now under judicial scrutiny, what was once seen as a requirement on paper is being taken far more seriously. Regulatory pressure is rising, and for many institutions, the shift from policy to action has already begun.

At Metis, we’re seeing a growing number of organisations reach out to assess their compliance status, set up or reconstitute Internal Committees, and strengthen their redressal mechanisms in line with the latest directives.

The post The Supreme Court’s directives on nationwide POSH implementation first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

A recent survey indicates a 31% increase in complaints during the 2022-23 fiscal year compared to the previous year, reflecting a significant rise in reported incidents. This upward trend is projected to persist into 2025. However, there has also been a rise in the number of false complaints. The troubling misuse of the policies framed to protect victims of harassment can have severe and far-reaching consequences.

The Vishaka Guidelines, established by the Supreme Court of India in 1997 to address sexual harassment in the workplace, gave birth to the POSH Act. The crucial legislation was enacted to create a safe working environment for women. Unfortunately, when false complaints are made, the very foundation of the Act gets undermined.

Understanding false complaints

Any complaint filed under the POSH Act where the complainant has made intentionally false allegations against the respondent, with an intention to malign their reputation are termed as false complaints. In fact, the courts are also calling out a recurring pattern in the blatant misuse of law through the false complaints route. Late last year, the Supreme Court noted a ‘worrying trend’ of disgruntled partners seeking to term long-term consensual relationships as harassment under penal laws.

However, non-availability of evidence should not be construed as false complaints.

Serious ramifications

False complaints may be driven by personal vendetta, a desire to save their own skin, or worse, as a prank. Regardless of motive, the ramifications of false complaints are nothing but devastating for all parties involved and may include loss of reputation and even career disruption. Moreover, after a false complaint, employees may become excessively cautious and may begin to constantly second-guess their behavior in order to steer clear of even the smallest hint of harassment.

The impact on genuine victims of false complaints is profound, as each false accusation undermines trust and makes it more difficult for real victims to come forward. Despite neutral investigations, doubt can taint new cases, causing genuine victims to fear that their reports will not be believed.

Most importantly, this erosion of trust extends to the POSH Act itself. Many employers and employees are of the view that this Act is problematic rather than protective, and allows frivolous complaints and misuse. The prevalence of these kinds of complaints reinforce these misconceptions, undermining the credibility of genuine ones and the critical purpose of the Act.

False complaints can also significantly drain company resources, requiring extensive time for investigations, documentation, and legal procedures. This resource drain is particularly problematic for organisations that already view POSH as a challenging area, as it exacerbates existing concerns and leads to a pervasive mistrust in the system.

The false complaints can create a toxic work environment, resulting in fissures within teams, reducing morale, and fostering a culture of suspicion. Employees may become hesitant to interact with colleagues, fearing false accusations, which stifles collaboration and productivity. The cumulative effect of these factors can severely undermine the overall workplace atmosphere and efficiency.

Punishments

The IC should first investigate sexual harassment claims and judge whether they are true or false. To do this, the IC should follow due process and conduct a thorough investigation while ensuring it is unbiased and impartial.

Under the POSH Act, if an inquiry committee finds that a sexual harassment complaint is false or made with malicious intent, the complainant could face serious consequences, including termination of employment. The purpose of this is to prevent false or frivolous claims, while ensuring that the grievance redressal process remains fair and just for everyone involved.

How organisations can address the issue

To mitigate the impact of false complaints, organisations should adopt a balanced approach that upholds the integrity of the POSH Act, while protecting individuals from wrongful accusations at the same time.

It is also imperative for organisations to ensure that the ICs are in place and that all investigation processes are thorough, impartial, and fair. For this, organisations must also provide training to the ICs on how to handle all complaints objectively and sensitively.

That apart, there should be clear consequences for those found to be making false complaints. This will majorly help deter individuals from misusing the system, while reinforcing the importance of genuine reporting.

Most importantly, organisations must conduct regular training sessions on the importance of the POSH Act and the ramifications of false complaints, which can help foster a culture of trust and transparency. Educating employees about the serious consequences of false reporting can act as a deterrent.

Conclusion

While the rise in false complaints is a troubling trend, it is crucial to remember the original intent behind the POSH Act – to create a safe and inclusive workplace for all. By addressing the issue of false complaints head-on and implementing measures to protect both genuine victims and the wrongfully accused, organisations can uphold the integrity of their workplace policies and ensure a respectful and supportive environment for everyone.

By adopting a balanced approach, including robust investigation processes, clear consequences, support systems, and continuous education, organisations can effectively mitigate the impact of false complaints and maintain a fair and safe workplace.

The post The ramifications of false complaints in the workplace first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

There are clear guidelines for the police, courts, and media on how to conceal the details of
the victims in sexual assault cases. Despite this, the officials involved in handling the recent
sexual harassment case in Anna University, Chennai failed to uphold the victim’s right to
privacy. The FIR of the case was uploaded in the public domain, revealing the identity of the
victim, her phone number and address, and the details of the incident.

The FIR leakage is a serious lapse in the investigation process, with high chances of
deviating and destabilising the ongoing investigation. The negligence has potentially
exposed the victim to discrimination and harassment. The Madras High Court ruled in favour
of the victim and directed that the Tamil Nadu government pay an interim compensation of
Rs. 25 lakh to the victim. This would be recovered from those who were responsible for the
dereliction of duty and leaking of the FIR.

The Confidentiality Mandate

Maintaining the confidentiality of the victims of sexual harassment is of utmost importance.
This is a critical mandate even in PoSH cases . Complainants will only come forward if they
firmly believe that they can trust the process – with an assurance of safety and security by
ensuring anonymity.

In the P v. A & Ors case from 2021, the Bombay High Court issued important guidelines for
maintaining anonymity in PoSH cases. The High Court acknowledged that the identities of
the persons involved in the case must be protected from both intentional and accidental
exposure. The court outlined specific minimum standards to shield the identities of the
people.

● The names of the parties should not be included in the body of the order.
● The orders should be titled only with the first letter of their names during the proceedings. For example, the A v. B case, and P v. S case.
● Any information that might aid in identifying the survivor, the harasser, and the
witnesses will not be included in the order.
● These orders will not be uploaded publicly.

The privacy standards are intended to act as a functioning framework for courts handling
PoSH Act matters. This case is a benchmark for ensuring victim protection in PoSH cases
during legal proceedings.

Role of Internal Committees in Maintaining Privacy

Similar to courts, ICs handling PoSH cases are required to safeguard confidentiality during the investigation with extreme care. It is strictly forbidden by the PoSH Act to divulge case details to outside parties. The employer is the only person who may be given such information, ideally on a need-to-know basis. The employer must be notified when the complaint is first filed and when the final report needs to be actioned. Putting such interim measures into place aids the investigation.

Consequently, the Employer and the ICs must take all reasonable steps to safeguard case-
related data, such as witness and party identities. ICs should anonymise these reports once
the final version of the investigation is part of the records and ensure their safe storage.

Confidentiality is indispensable because it is a promise of safety for the victims coming
forward with their cases. A breach of confidentiality is a breach of their confidence in the
system.

There should be regular training for IC members on confidentiality protocols.

How ICs can build more trust in the organisation

Victims are empowered to come forward only when they are aware of the company’s
policies on PoSH and how they address these cases. Organisations should take active steps
to create awareness among the entire workforce regarding the PoSH Act, its guidelines, and
redressal mechanisms especially educating victims to come directly to the IC without talking
about the case with colleagues as this could lead to gossip.

A major barrier to people reporting sexual harassment at workplaces is the fear of
information leakage, which can in turn make the working environment more hostile for the
victim. The victim might have to face cultural stigma around such cases. Therefore, the ICs
responsible for resolving PoSH cases must be sensitised, and understand their duty to make
a cultural shift towards empathy and victim protection.

If you wish to know more please do reach out to us on contact@posh.metisindia.com

The post Confidentiality Is Non-Negotiable first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.