“Aforesaid complaints refer various incidents though specific dates are not mentioned and that Court is not aware that when these complaints were made to ICC as on complaint no date was mentioned in record and also taking note that even in X vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (supra) Supreme Court has observed that in certain circumstances delay may not be considered adverse to the extent that complaints may be rejected at threshold as it would not be in consonance of object of POSH Act and that normally such complaints are not made immediately, especially when complainants were working under delinquent as it would affect their respective future.”Various sexual harassment complaints were filed by girl students who had done their PhD under the Petitioner, the Associate Professor at HCRI.

Petitioner sought various documents pertaining to the proceedings of the Internal Complaints Committee, but allegedly was not supplied the same. Eventually, he was found guilty and an order was passed censuring the petitioner and barring him from taking any female students as PHD fellows or research assistants.

Petitioner approached the High Court against the aforesaid order on grounds that the complaints were filed after a delay of 6 months whereas the POSH Act provides that the complaints must be filed before the ICC within 3 months from the incident.  It was also argued that the copies of the complaints and statements of alleged victims was not provided to the petitioner.

The Court observed that there was no reference in the report of the ICC regarding statements and documents being supplied to the petitioner. It noted that no reference was made in the report regarding demand of cross-examination, if any, made by the petitioner. Accordingly, it held that the ICC had not followed the procedure prescribed under the POSH Act.  Holding that merely because dates of incidents were not specified before the Court, the complaints could not be rejected at the threshold, the Court quashed the impugned order.

It nonetheless directed the ICC to consider the time period of allegation, specific date of complaints as well as any explanation by complainants to approach at belated stage and then take a fresh decision, whether complaints have to be rejected at threshold or to proceed further.

Download the judgement copy here :  POSH Allahbad HC Dr. Tapas Kumar Das vs Harush Chandra (34 downloads )

The post Allahabad HC : Belated POSH Complaints Can’t Be Rejected Without Considering Reasons first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

The four elements discussed below provide a useful framework for understanding the facts, evaluating evidence, and assessing whether the alleged conduct may constitute sexual harassment under the POSH Act. When applying this framework, Internal Committees should remain guided by the principles of natural justice, fairness, and the standard of proof applicable to POSH inquiries, namely, the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Perpetrator

Definition: The individual alleged to have committed the act.

What the Internal Committee needs to keep in mind

When examining a complaint, the Internal Committee should first identify who the respondent is and understand their relationship with the aggrieved woman. It is important to consider whether there was a power imbalance between the parties—for example, if the respondent was a reporting manager, senior leader, colleague, client, vendor, consultant, or any other person connected to the workplace.

The Committee should also assess whether the respondent’s position, authority, influence, or seniority may have affected either the alleged conduct or the complainant’s ability to respond, object, or report the incident.

At the same time, the Committee should remain objective and avoid making assumptions based solely on a person’s designation, length of service, performance record, or reputation within the organisation.

Questions to Consider
• Who is alleged to have committed the conduct?
• What was their role and position relative to the complainant?
• Did they have any supervisory or decision-making authority over the complainant?
• Were there previous complaints or concerns involving similar conduct?

POSH Lens: Focus on the conduct and evidence, not the individual’s status or organizational importance.

2. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind / Intent)

Definition: The mental state or intention behind the conduct.

What the Internal Committee needs to keep in mind

In POSH inquiries, it is often difficult to determine exactly what a person intended, as there is rarely direct evidence of their thoughts or motives. However, the Internal Committee can understand intent by looking at the person’s actions, the surrounding circumstances, and their communications.

The Committee should consider:
• Was the behaviour intentional or could it have been accidental?
• Did the respondent know, or should they reasonably have understood, that the behaviour was unwelcome?
• Did the conduct continue even after the complainant expressed discomfort, objected, or asked the respondent to stop?
• Is there evidence of similar behaviour occurring more than once or with others?
Looking at these factors can help the Committee understand whether the conduct was a one-time misunderstanding or part of a deliberate pattern of behaviour.

Questions to Consider
• Does the available evidence suggest that the conduct was intentional, careless, or a one-time mistake?
• Would a reasonable person have understood that the behaviour could make someone uncomfortable?
• Did the respondent continue the behaviour after the complainant showed discomfort or indicated that it was unwelcome?
• Do emails, messages, meeting interactions, or witness statements suggest that the conduct was deliberate rather than accidental?

This version encourages the Internal Committee to focus on facts and context rather than legal terminology.

Important POSH Perspective

A finding of sexual harassment does not always require proof of malicious intent. The impact on the recipient and whether the conduct was unwelcome are often more relevant than the respondent’s claimed intentions.

Example:
A respondent may say, “I was only joking.” The inquiry must assess whether the conduct was unwelcome and created discomfort, regardless of the stated intention.

3. Actus Reus (Guilty Act)

Definition: The actual conduct or behaviour complained of.

What the Internal Committee needs to keep in mind

This is often the most important part of a POSH inquiry because it focuses on the facts of the case and the evidence available to support them.

The Internal Committee should seek to clearly understand:
• What exactly is alleged to have happened?
• When and where did the incident(s) take place?
• Was it a one-time occurrence or did it happen repeatedly?
• What evidence is available to support or challenge the allegation, such as emails, messages,    documents, CCTV footage, or witness statements?
• Whether the alleged behaviour involved spoken comments, inappropriate jokes, messages     or emails, physical contact, requests for personal meetings, sharing explicit material, non-         verbal actions such as staring or gestures, or retaliatory treatment following the                           complainant’s rejection of the behaviour.

A clear understanding of the facts helps the Committee assess the complaint objectively and arrive at a fair conclusion based on the available evidence.

Questions to Consider
• What was said or done?
• Is there documentary evidence?
• Are there witnesses?
• Is there consistency between statements and evidence?

POSH Lens: Focus on facts, context, frequency, and workplace impact rather than isolated interpretations.

4. Injury (Resulting Harm)

Definition: The harm, impact, or adverse consequence resulting from the conduct.

What the Internal Committee needs to keep in mind

When assessing a complaint, the Internal Committee should remember that the impact of sexual harassment is not limited to physical harm. The alleged conduct may also affect a person’s emotional well-being, sense of dignity, confidence, career progression, or overall experience at work.

The Committee should consider whether the complainant experienced:
• Emotional distress, anxiety, or stress
• Humiliation, embarrassment, or loss of dignity
• Fear or discomfort in the workplace
• A hostile, intimidating, or uncomfortable work environment
• Negative effects on work performance or career opportunities
• Retaliation, victimisation, or unfair treatment after reporting or rejecting the behaviour

Understanding the impact of the conduct helps the Committee assess not only what happened, but also how it affected the complainant and the workplace environment.

Questions to Consider
• How did the conduct affect the complainant?
• Did it interfere with work performance?
• Did it create an intimidating or hostile environment?
• Did the complainant avoid meetings, travel, or interactions because of the conduct?

Important POSH Perspective

Even where significant harm is not demonstrable, conduct may still constitute sexual harassment if it falls within the definition provided under the POSH Act and is objectively unwelcome.

How should the Internal Committee look at cases

Think in four layers

• Element Key – Perpetrator | Inquiry question – Who allegedly engaged in the conduct?
• Element Key – Mens Rea | Inquiry question – What can reasonably be inferred about the intent, awareness, or recklessness behind the conduct?
• Element Key – Actus Reus | Inquiry question – What exactly happened and what evidence supports it?
• Element Key – Injury | Inquiry question – What impact did the conduct have on the complainant and workplace environment?

Key Takeaway for the Internal Committee

A well-conducted POSH inquiry examines who acted (Perpetrator), what was done (Actus Reus), why or with what awareness it was done (Mens Rea), and what impact it caused (Injury). Looking at cases through these four lenses helps consultants conduct fair, structured, evidence-based assessments while remaining aligned with the objectives of the POSH Act and principles of natural justice.

The post Guiding IC Members: Four Elements of Complaint Assessment first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.

What made this case a turning point was not just who the victim was. It was how little it took. A publicly available photo, a free AI tool, and the decision to use it to humiliate someone. That decision is being made every day now, in workplaces, in professional networks, in group chats where colleagues think no one is watching. Online harassment has found a powerful new instrument in generative AI, and every workspace, physical or digital, is already within its reach.

Online Harassment has a New Toolkit

Deepfakes, which are AI-generated or AI-altered images, videos, and audio, are no longer a niche technological curiosity. The number of deepfake files skyrocketed from 500,000 in 2023 to an estimated 8 million by 2025, and the tools to create them require almost no technical skill. A social media profile, a few public photos, a voice note — that is enough raw material.

Deepfake-related cybercrime cases in India have increased as well. According to a McAfee survey, 75% of Indians have consumed some form of deepfake content in the last twelve months, and 88% have encountered deepfake scams. These are not abstract numbers. The harm is real, immediate, and overwhelmingly gendered.

It is Happening to Ordinary Women, Not Just Celebrities

The Rashmika Mandanna case made national headlines and triggered an FIR. But that incident, visible precisely because of who the victim was, represents a much larger crisis. A 2025 report based on cases submitted to Meri Trustline, a helpline by the Rati Foundation, found that 92% of women reporting deepfake abuse are ordinary women, not celebrities.

The content being created is not limited to viral videos. It includes morphed intimate images circulated in WhatsApp groups, fake profiles built from stolen LinkedIn photos, voice notes doctored to put words in someone’s mouth, and threats to upload manipulated imagery unless a demand is met. These are tools of intimidation, and they are showing up in professional contexts with increasing frequency.

In the workplace, deepfakes can be weaponised to harass, intimidate, retaliate, or destroy reputations, often with limited recourse under traditional employment policies. A fabricated image of a female colleague shared in an office group chat. A cloned voice note made to sound like an employee saying something compromising. An altered photograph used to discredit a woman who raised a complaint. Each of these scenarios is plausible. Several are already documented.

This is Workplace Harassment Under POSH

India’s Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 defines harassment to include any unwelcome act that creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment. The law explicitly extends to the “extended workplace,” meaning any location where work-related interaction occurs. Digital channels are not an exception.

When a colleague’s image is morphed into obscene content and shared through a work group, that is sexual harassment under POSH. When a woman receives AI-generated explicit content from a co-worker, that is a violation. When someone’s voice is cloned to fabricate a conversation that then circulates in professional networks, there is both a POSH complaint and a criminal offence at play.

The challenge is that most Internal Committees have been trained to handle verbal and physical complaints. Digital harassment, especially when it involves social media, anonymous accounts, or content originating outside office hours, is a new frontier that existing IC training rarely covers. The gap between what the law covers and what organisations are prepared to investigate is significant, and closing it is now a compliance priority.

What Indian Law Says

India does not yet have a standalone deepfake law. But existing frameworks offer more protection than most people realise. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, notified by MeitY in February 2026, now impose a strict three-hour takedown window for AI-generated content flagged as harmful, making this one of the most stringent platform liability provisions globally.

Key provisions currently available to victims:

Under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023:

• Section 336 covers forgery using AI-altered media, carrying up to 7 years imprisonment
• Section 79 addresses outraging modesty, including through morphed images, with up to 3 years imprisonment
• Section 356 deals with defamation through published imagery, carrying up to 2 years imprisonment
• Section 351(3) covers criminal intimidation using morphed imagery as a threat, with up to 7 years imprisonment

Under the Information Technology Act, 2000:

• Section 66C covers identity theft through misuse of someone’s digital likeness, carrying up to 3 years imprisonment and a Rs 1 lakh fine
• Section 66E addresses violation of privacy through publishing someone’s imagery without consent
• Section 67A criminalises publishing sexually explicit synthetic content, with up to 7 years on repeat conviction

Courts have been responsive. In December 2025, Delhi and Mumbai courts granted emergency orders in favour of NTR Jr., R. Madhavan, and Shilpa Shetty, blocking the spread of AI-generated deepfakes and voice clones, and making clear that intermediaries must quickly remove AI-driven impersonations once notified.

What to Do if it Happens to You 

A fast response matters enormously, and under the 2026 IT Rules, acting quickly triggers the platform’s legal obligation to remove content within hours. Whether the victim is you, a colleague, or someone who approaches HR, the steps are the same.

• Preserve evidence first. Screenshot the content, note the URL, and save any profile details of the person who uploaded it. Do not delete anything.
• File a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) and at the nearest cyber police station. For sexual deepfakes, FIR registration is mandatory.
• Report directly to the platform, triggering their takedown obligation under the 2026 IT Rules.
• Escalate through POSH channels if the content involves any workplace connection, such as a colleague, a manager, or a shared professional network.
• Seek urgent High Court relief in serious cases. Indian courts have granted nearly immediate takedown orders for deepfake materials that are potentially damaging, often within 12 to 18 hours.

Building a Workplace that Takes online Sexual Harassment Seriously

Digital conduct is not a grey area anymore. Organisations have a clear duty, ethical and legal, to treat online harassment with the same weight as anything that happens in a conference room. That means updating POSH policies to explicitly name digital and AI-generated harassment, training Internal Committees to investigate such complaints properly, and communicating without ambiguity that creating, sharing, or threatening someone with manipulated content is grounds for disciplinary action.

The women in your teams are navigating a professional environment where their faces, voices, and identities can be weaponised by anyone with a smartphone and a motive. Recognising that as a workplace safety issue, not just a social media problem, is the first and most important shift an organisation can make.

The post When the Screen Becomes the Weapon: Online Harassment, AI, and What It Means for Your Workplace 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 ” (28642 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.

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.

Petitioner was working as District Programme Officer, Kushinagar when he was suspended by an order passed by Chief Secretary Child Development and Nutrition, Uttar Pradesh on grounds that words said do not amount to sexual harassment, the internal complaint committee was not duly constituted under the Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the statement of the complainant, the petitioner had called her fatty and had often suggested that she go on evening walks with him and also invited her to have meals with him. It was argued that this by itself does not constitute sexual harassment. It was also argued that procedure prescribed for dealing with such complaints was not followed by the internal complaints committee.

Per contra, counsel for respondent argued that body shaming of the complainant and all events taken together constituted sexual harassment under the Act. It was argued that since the petitioner’s statement was recorded, he could not now say that he could not put up his defence. He should have filed an application before the internal complaints committee for cross-examination.

An FIR lodged against the petitioner regarding sexual harassment of another female was also brought on record before the Court to argue that many women working in petitioner’s department have felt uncomfortable. The Court observed that suspension is not a punishment but a measure to prevent the delinquent from influencing the proceedings against him. “An employee is placed under suspension by the employer only to ensure that he is not able to influence the enquiry in any manner, in as much as he is not able to interfere with the evidence or also in such cases where the employer finds it necessary to place an employee under suspension so as to have smooth disposal of disciplinary proceedings.” Holding that a head of a department’s suspension pending inquiry leads to confidence building, the Court observed that the way in which the remark was made “may” constitute sexual harassment, however, it refrained from making any final remarks as the disciplinary proceedings were ongoing. It held that prima facie case was made out for suspension of the petitioner. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

Download the Judgment copy here – Allahabad HC - Suspension Of HOD In Sexual Harassment Case (2460 downloads )

The post Allahabad HC – Suspension Of HOD In Sexual Harassment Case first appeared on Metis POSH Consulting Service LLP.