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 (631 downloads )

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