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.

Case Title: Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD (Writ Petition 1635 of 2021)

The Bombay High Court last week, came to the rescue of an employee of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), who challenged the penalty of ‘Reprimand’ imposed on him by the Central Complaints Committee (CCC) for ‘video recording’ his female colleagues who often ‘disturbed’ the working hours by ‘sitting together, giggling, gossiping and singing.’

A division bench noted that the CCC by its order passed on June 30, 2020 held that the conduct of the petitioner – Dr Mohinder Kumar did not amount to ‘sexual harassment’ as prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH), however, it recommended action against him.

On this very recommendation, the competent authority, Chief General Manager of NABARD imposed a penalty of ‘Reprimand’ on Kumar as the CCC in its report stated that his ‘conduct of shooting video, though did not amount to sexual harassment but was also not justified.’  In view of the recommendations, the Chief General Manager of NABARD had imposed a major penalty (under Reprimand) of ‘compulsory retirement’ on Kumar and he was subsequently retired by the bank.

Challenging the findings of the CCC and the penalty by the competent authority, Kumar relied on section 13(2) of the POSH Act, which provides that when the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) arrives at a conclusion that the allegations against a person are not proved, then it has to recommend to the employer that no action is required in the said matter.

Considering the facts of the case, the judges in their January 12 order, said, “Upon going through the order of penalty imposed by the Competent Authority dated September 24, 2020, it is evident that the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of ‘Reprimand’ solely on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCC. The CCC is a Committee specially constituted to address the grievances of sexual harassment, hence once the Committee has formed an opinion that the conduct of the Petitioner did not constitute ‘sexual harassment’, it could not have recommended any action against the Petitioner. It should have simply closed the matter and dismissed the complaint.”  The court stated that the CCC in the instant case, has acted beyond its powers.

“The CCC has exceeded its jurisdiction by making recommendation to the Competent Authority to take suitable action against the Petitioner. Similarly, acting on the recommendation of the CCC, the Competent Authority has committed an error by imposing penalty of ‘Reprimand’ without application of his mind or making any independent inquiry, thus the order passed by the Chief General Manager and Competent Authority dated September 24, 2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside,” the judges held.

With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the penalty imposed on Kumar.

Download the Judgement copy here – Case Law - Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD (567 downloads )

The post Bombay H C – Once allegation not proved, no action can follow first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

The POSH Annual Report is much more than a mere formality; it is a statutory obligation under India’s POSH Act that offers a reflection of how seriously an organization takes workplace safety. Every organization under the Act is required to submit this report annually, capturing details about complaints received and resolved, pending cases, and awareness programs conducted throughout the year. It is a legal requirement that must be filed with the appropriate district officer, emphasizing the importance of accountability and transparency within organizational cultures.

Welcome to Posh Conversations—a space where voices that matter come together to discuss safety, dignity, and inclusion in the workplace. In today’s blog, we’re diving deep into the nuances of the POSH Annual Report, a document that every organization must file but few truly understand. From what the report captures to why it matters, we aim to simplify, clarify, and shed light on this crucial element of workplace compliance.

Why the Emphasis on the POSH Annual Report?

One of the common inquiries from organizations is why so much emphasis is placed on this report. The POSH Annual Report is a measure of accountability and it demonstrates to regulators and stakeholders that an organization addresses complaints through due process. It sends a strong internal message that complaints are acknowledged and tracked, contributing to not just compliance but also fostering a culture of awareness and respect.

Answering Common Questions

• Who Prepares and Submits the Report

The Internal Committee (IC) is responsible for preparing the annual report, though submissions are typically made by the employer or HR. Once submitted, the district officer forwards a brief report to the state government.

• Does the Report Contain Names or Case Details?

Absolutely not. The POSH Annual Report maintains confidentiality by only reporting figures such as the number of complaints received, resolved, pending, and awareness activities conducted.

• What If There Were No Complaints?

Organizations must still file a “nil report,” which is a valid submission even if no complaints were registered during the year.

• Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to file the report can lead to penalties and raises red flags during audits. It is increasingly scrutinized by boards, investors, and external stakeholders.

• Filing for Locations with Fewer Than 10 Employees

According to Section 21, locations with fewer than ten employees are exempt from submitting an annual report.

• Who Signs the Report?

The report is typically signed by the Internal Committee’s Chairperson or Presiding Officer

• Including Conciliation Details

Even if a case is resolved amicably through conciliation, such details must still be reflected in the annual report.

• Awareness Sessions and Workshops

The report should declare all workshops, training sessions for IC members, and awareness programs conducted for employees through various formats.

• Determining the District office for Submission

Organizations need to identify the correct district officer based on their location. Contact details are usually available online, and verification is recommended to ensure accuracy.

The Story Behind the Numbers

It is a misconception that the report is only about numbers. The numbers tell an important story about the organization’s awareness, response to complaints, and effectiveness of the IC. A report with no complaints does not necessarily equate to a problem-free environment but could indicate a lack of awareness or reporting issues within the company.

It is a misconception that the report is only about numbers. The numbers tell an important story about the organization’s awareness, response to complaints, and effectiveness of the IC. A report with no complaints does not necessarily equate to a problem-free environment but could indicate a lack of awareness or reporting issues within the company.

What to include?

• Number of complaints of sexual harassment received in the year
• Number of complaints disposed of during the year
• Number of cases pending for more than ninety days
• Number of workshops or awareness programme against sexual harassment carried out
• Nature of action taken by the employer or District officer

Annual Report Format

To download the Annual Report Format Click Drafts – “POSH Annual report format ” (27562 downloads )

The post Understanding the POSH Annual Report – Annual Report Format 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.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025

Upholds maximum statutory limitation of six months period for filing sexual harassment complaint

The Supreme Court on September 12, 2025, ruled that the sexual harassment alleged by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science against the Vice Chancellor of the University, is time-barred as the alleged incident happened in April 2023, but the complaint was filed in December 2023, after a maximum statutory limitation of six months prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

It was argued that while the last alleged sexual harassment took place in April 2023, the consequent administrative actions, such as her removal from the post of Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies or inquiry by the Executive Council over the misutilisation of UGC funds, also constituted acts of sexual harassment and therefore, the complaint was not time-barred.

However, the Court held that the last alleged incident in April 2023 was a complete act in itself, and the subsequent administrative measures, although they may have given the impression that it was done as a matter of retaliation and were linked to previous acts, did not constitute sexual harassment.

“The alleged act of harassment of April 2023, was a complete act in itself and had not continued thereafter. The administrative measures of August 2023, were independent and were collective decisions of the NFCG and the Executive Council which cannot be solely attributed to the Vice-Chancellor. The said decision may have caused inconvenience to the appellant or may have given an impression that they are in line with previous acts of harassment, but they were not part of the continued sexual harassment. The subsequent events have no connection to the earlier act of sexual misconduct and as such, fall clearly out of the preview of acts or behaviours amounting to sexual harassment. In this way, the incident of April 2023, remains the last event related to sexual harassment.”

While the Court upheld the decision of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court that the complaint is time-barred, it directed that this judgment shall be made a part of the Vice-Chancellor’s resume, a compliance with which shall be strictly ensured by him personally.

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the discussion, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court committed no error of law in restoring the decision of the LCC that the complaint of the appellant is time barred and is liable to be dismissed. It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten. In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever.

Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally.”

The complainant was made by Vaneeta Patnaik, a faculty member, against Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the VC.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that there may have been a wrong on the part of the Vice-Chancellor, but the complaint was not investigated on technical grounds.

In this case, the Appellant alleged sexual harassment at the hands of the Vice-Chancellor, the last act of which was allegedly committed in April 2023. But since she formally filed a complaint on December 26, 2023, the Local Complaints Committee rejected it as time-barred, against which she filed a writ petition.

The single judge allowed her petition and directed a fresh hearing on the grounds that she was subjected to threat of detrimental treatment in her employment and the Vice-Chancellor created an intimidating, offensive and hostile work environment for her.

It was the case of the Appellant that she was subjected to administrative actions after April 2023, which formed a continuing act of sexual harassment. The Appellant alleged that the incidents began in July 2019. In August, she was removed as Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies. During this time, a one-man inquiry commission was set up by the Executive Council to investigate an allegation of misutilisation of the UGC grant. It was resolved that a sum of Rs. 1 lac be refunded immediately by the NUJS.

The division bench said that the alleged incidents after April 2023 did not constitute sexual harassment.

This was the specific issue before the Court as to whether subsequent actions constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Court also acknowledged that the Appellant herself recognised that she had delayed in filing the complaint.

It said: “The appellant, in filing the complaint, also moved an application for condonation of delay stating that there were “mitigating circumstances” which she had attempted to resolve within the institution and when she failed, she then filed the complaint. The very fact that the appellant was conscious of the fact that her complaint was delayed, proves that she herself treated the act of April 2023, to be the last incident of sexual harassment and as such, tried to explain the delay in filing the complaint.”

The post Supreme Court – Six-month limit for filing sexual harassment complaints 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.