Enabling World Insight Series
Real Challenges and Best Practices Every IC Member Should Know
THE CHALLENGE :
Great investigators do not dominate conversations - they guide them. They do not chase confessions - they follow evidence. And they do not assume truth - they uncover it, one question at a time.
More than a decade after the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) of Women at the Workplace Act, 2013, came into force, we see, on the one hand, remarkable progress and, on the other, stubborn implementation gaps across Indian organisations. As a POSH specialist with extensive experience in training Internal Committees (ICs), designing policies and guiding complex investigations, I have seen how this legislation has empowered countless women while still falling short of its full potential in many workplaces.
In 2025, India’s top 30 blue-chip companies saw a 6.2% rise in the number of sexual harassment complaints. BSE 30 companies received a total of 958 sexual harassment complaints in FY25, up from 902 in FY24. While it signals growing employee trust in formal redressal mechanisms, it also places immense pressure on ICs to conduct thorough, fair, and legally defensible inquiries. The Supreme Court has been unequivocal in its judgement, Aureliano Fernandes versus State of Goa, highlighting the poor state and lack of effectiveness of Internal Committees. The Court has called out issues regarding the proper constitution of ICs, a lack of skills, and inquiries that do not withstand legal scrutiny.
In my advisory work, I often emphasise that the true measure is not the number of cases filed, but the quality of resolutions, the restoration of dignity, and the strengthening of organisational culture. Hybrid and remote work have complicated this landscape, blurred traditional boundaries, and introduced fresh challenges that demand deeper expertise from IC members and HR leaders alike.
Today, a rigid definition of ‘workplace’ no longer aligns with current realities. I strongly advocate embracing the broader “world of work” framework, inspired by ILO Convention 190 (which India has yet to ratify). It extends beyond the physical office to encompass any location or context where an employee is engaged in work-related activities, including virtual platforms.
Building Bulletproof Internal Committees
Constitution and Continuous Capability Building – The foundation of effective POSH implementation rests on a well-constituted and adequately trained IC. Management is responsible for nominations, the senior-most woman employee serving as Presiding Officer, supported by additional members and an independent external member.
The key is to choose the members of the Committee who are learned and highly committed to the cause.
Recommended Practices for a Strong IC Constitution:
- Ensure an odd number of members to prevent deadlocks when opinions are split. Even numbers can lead to stalemates, while a committee of seven or more works well for larger organisations.
- Mandate an annual review of the Composition of the IC, given that people’s roles change and their time commitments and motivation affect the effective functioning of the IC.
- For multi-location or large enterprises, maintain a pool of trained members and constitute case-specific IC while preserving quorum, always including the Presiding Officer and an external expert.
- Prioritise diversity in functional backgrounds while ensuring deep commitment to the subject.
- Training must go beyond a checkbox exercise. One-time orientation sessions are highly insufficient. Ongoing, indepth, and intensive training is essential for ICs to stay up to date on legal interpretations, legal changes, and current trends, and to sharpen their investigative skills to conduct investigations with professionalism and empathy.
I recommend quarterly, scenario-based training tailored to specific locations & challenges to keep them equipped. IC members must understand not only the provisions of law but also the nuances of natural justice, confidentiality obligations, and the far-reaching consequences of improper case handling or procedural shortcomings. Membership should be approached with sincerity, not as just another committee.
We create the committees, but there is often a lack of understanding regarding the heavy responsibility they carry.
Without this depth, even well-intentioned inquiries have a high risk of being overturned. IC membership is a position of significant authority and accountability, one that demands sincerity, objectivity, and ongoing learning.
Breaking The Silence
Despite legal safeguards, stigma and fear of retaliation remain formidable barriers that prevent timely reporting and allow toxic behaviours to persist. Building a strong culture with zero tolerance for retaliation across all ethics issues, not just POSH, is the key. Leadership & HR play a pivotal role in cultivating psychological safety and demonstrating visibly and consistently that retaliation, whether subtle or overt, is not tolerated, irrespective of the inquiry’s outcome.
External safety, too,remains a challenge for the complainant. Many women feel safe within the organisation but fear the respondent outside, particularly when the respondent is local or resides in the vicinity of their accommodation. Some hesitate to file complaints because they do not want to reveal their identity.
We know internally we are safe… but when I leave the oBice… I don’t feel like I will be safe outside of the workplace
Recommended Strategies:
- Direct engagement and providing confidential counselling by IC members.
- Assurances of confidentiality and protection.
- Assist hesitant individuals in drafting written complaints, especially when the person is stressed or unsure of how or what to write. The law supports assisting the aggrieved woman in drafting the written complaint.
- Uphold strict confidentiality during preliminary assessments.
Complaint By Bystander
The organisation must raise awareness among employees to play an active role in preventing and addressing any form of harassment in the workplace. That places the responsibility on bystanders to intervene directly by calling out inappropriate behaviour and supporting the victim with empathy and assistance if they notice harassment in the workplace. Active bystander intervention helps break the culture of silence, deter potential harassers, empower victims, and strengthen organisational compliance with POSH.
That said, a bystander cannot file a complaint on their own. They may raise the complaint under the whistleblower policy or inform the IC members of the incident; however, such information cannot be treated as a formal complaint to initiate a formal investigation by the IC. There are specific circumstances where people other than the victim can file a complaint. Section 9(2) of the Act specifies the conditions for a complaint made by a person other than the victim. They can support the victim, encourage the victim to file, or file on her behalf only if she is unable to do so and gives written consent.
Bystander complaints, on their own, can trigger preliminary inquiries by IC members. Still, formal POSH proceedings require a written complaint from the aggrieved woman or the persons prescribed under the law, depending on the circumstances. If the victim declines to proceed, the IC generally cannot proceed, though creating trust in the system remains an obligation of ICs and management.
Context is everything. Power imbalances, for instance, may warrant additional sensitivity and support.
Anonymous Complaints
Anonymous complaints through grievance portals are typically handled under whistleblower policies or by HR or a grievance handling mechanism. They allow preliminary assessment while maintaining confidentiality. These do not automatically trigger formal POSH proceedings. The IC can study (as stated earlier) whether a full investigation is warranted before proceeding.
The complainant’s identity must be known to the IC member, and a formal complaint is required for the IC to initiate an inquiry against the respondent. As mentioned earlier, Respondent has the right to defend himself; hence, he should have access to all information unless specifically restricted, considering the victim’s vulnerability in a bona fide manner.
Can IC Take Suo Moto Action?
This question normally puzzles the IC members, HR and the organisation. The legal position is that IC cannot initiate an inquiry without a formal complaint from the aggrieved person or from the person authorised to raise the complaint on the victim’s behalf.
IC can initiate an informal preliminary investigation if they hear some rumour or information from a third party in confidence. Such preliminary inquiry may help IC members support the victim who is unaware or afraid to file a formal complaint; however, it cannot initiate a formal inquiry into the matter without a formal complaint.
Think of a situation where IC got the information and initiated the formal inquiry, and the victim explicitly declines the allegations or refuses to pursue the matter. IC cannot proceed unilaterally, though the committee’s moral responsibility to address systemic risks remains. Therefore, it is important that the organisation continuously builds and strengthens the culture in which aggrieved individuals do not feel insecure about raising issues or red flags. Trust in the organisation’s culture and in the IC’s competence are paramount to removing inhibitions about raising a complaint.
Mastering Complex Investigation Scenarios
POSH inquiries are seldom binary. Each case demands careful consideration of context, evidence, and power dynamics
a. Non-Cooperation By Parties Or Witnesses
Every IC experiences the practical challenges of inquiry when a party refuses to cooperate. The most important element here is to understand, with empathy, what prompts the party not to cooperate with the inquiry. In my experience, the primary reason is a lack of trust in the IC itself or in the organisation to make fair decisions.
The most important tool is not issuing notices or proceeding ex parte - it is explaining to the person why they should cooperate and the consequences of noncooperation.
In such cases, the IC may consider the following:
- Education first: Educating participants about the process and consequences often improves engagement. Informing parties on why cooperation is in their own interest and the consequences of noncooperation helps.
- Informing well in advance about proceeding ex parte and its consequences may help enhance cooperation.
- Informing and exercising its power under Section 11(3) to summon evidence and witnesses.
- For a non-cooperating person, the IC can draw adverse inferences that lend credibility to the other party’s version; this must be documented in the inquiry report.
b. Potentially Malicious Complaints
Every case must be investigated fairly and in depth based on facts, without starting with assumptions. Approach every matter with an open yet rigorous mindset. Prioritise verifiable facts over emotions.
Emotions must be set aside. Findings must be based on verifiable facts tied to specific dates, times, and evidence.
Identifying a malicious complaint requires the same rigorous investigation as any other. The IC cannot prejudge the complaint’s intent. We must be cautious against letting emotions guide the process. A person crying, body language, etc., does not necessarily mean the complaint is genuine; likewise, a person who is calm and composed does not necessarily mean she or he is fabricating. Every finding must be grounded in verifiable facts, not emotional impressions. Remember, the inability to prove does not make the complaint malicious. It requires clear evidence of malicious intent; evidence that the complainant knew the complaint was untrue before raising the complaint. Such instances, when proved, should be dealt with sternly, in line with a zero-tolerance policy, to strengthen the people’s trust in the fairness of the process and the organisation. It shall also act as a deterrent for the future.
c. Confidentiality vs. Natural Justice
A common dilemma – can a complainant request anonymity from the respondent? This issue is more complicated than it first appears. The core principle is that while the IC can ensure that the parties do not face each other directly (using questionnaires and separate hearings), the complainant’s identity cannot be permanently concealed from the respondent. The principle of natural justice provides the right to know the specific accusations and respond to them and requires disclosure to the respondent at the appropriate stage of inquiry. However, there are special situations in which it may be in the complainant’s interest for the identity to remain confidential. This is generally the case where multiple complainants are involved. In Hira Nath Mishra and Ors. In The Principal, Rajendra Medical, a case involving mass misbehaviour by boys in the college’s girls’ hostel, the
Supreme Court protected the right to privacy & protection of the girl complainants. Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances. The court relied on another case, Union of India v. P.K. Roy, which held that the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the straitjacket of a rigid formula and that its application depends on several factors. In the present case, the complaint made to the Principal related to an extremely serious matter as it involved not merely internal discipline but the safety of the girl students living in the Hostel under the guardianship of the college authorities.…;
Having said that, this applies to the rarest of rare cases; in normal cases, the complainant’s identity and the details of the complaint are essential for the respondent to defend against. It is important to remember that while the complainant has the right to file a complaint, Respondent has an equal right to defend themselves and needs to be provided with adequate information that does not restrict the Respondent’s ability to defend.
d. Cross-Examination Challenge
There are situations where the Respondent insists on face-to-face (F2F) cross-examination of the complainant or the witness. In contrast, the complainant or the witness insists on avoiding F2F interaction given the gravity of the situation or the trauma they have faced. In such a case, the IC must decide whether the absence of F2F cross-examination by either party, in any manner, hampers or restricts the party’s right to a fair trial. POSH inquiries are different from the normal disciplinary inquiry. Here, emotions run very high, and the consequences extend beyond disciplinary punishment. Considering the vulnerability of any party in the inquiry, IC may decide not to allow F2F cross-examination but offer the option to the party to submit all the questions it has to the other party and get the response of the other party on those questions. IC has the right to take judgment on questions asked and moderate the questions asked under cross-examination. IC needs to be mindful that, at times, the follow-up question loop can create a time constraint or drag the inquiry in a different direction.
e. Inquiry in Virtual mode (Video Conference)
The law mandates that the IC be present during the inquiry. It does not specify whether it must be F2F, so the assumption is that online video presence is allowed. Virtual inquiry provides ease by removing the travel requirements, etc, but it comes with its own challenges. First and foremost is the challenge of confidentiality. IC faces a risk of a breach of confidentiality, as the proceedings may be recorded without authorisation and later misused by any party through selective alteration of the footage.
Neither the IC nor the parties can be certain whether the individual is being guided or prompted by someone off camera, which may complicate the entire inquiry process.
It may also create confidentiality and sensitivity issues, particularly when people are working from home and do not wish their families to know that inquiry proceedings are underway. Many a time, parties may insist on in-person inquiry rather than video mode, and IC must try to accommodate the request. F2F interactions also provide a reasonable opportunity to sense emotions, body language, and other cues that may contribute to a person’s credibility in the inquiry.
IC must ensure that recordings of the proceedings are saved in the system unaltered for later verification, if required, or for examination in a court of law.
f. Handling Inter-organisational Incidents
Many ICs are in a dilemma about which IC should inquire into the allegation if the respondent is from another organisation that also has its own IC. It is quite a tricky situation. Take, for example, a sales staff complains that she has been sexually harassed on a visit to a client’s office by the client’s staff. Such incidents squarely fall within POSH’s purview, and the complainant’s employer is required to initiate action. However, in such cases, the IC has no control over the respondent, nor can it punish the respondent if the allegations are found to be true in the inquiry.
The law lacks provisions to address such cases. While an option is to file a complaint with the Local Committee and a police complaint, other option is to actively coordinate with the respondent’s IC and file the complaint with the respondent’s IC.
In a recent case of Dr Sohail Malik Vs Union Of India where the respondent objected to the inquiry being initiated by the complainant’s IC, The Supreme Court has held in para 72 (iv) “In case the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace is conducting a fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act, the employer of the ‘respondent’, even if it is a different department, must abide its duties under Section 19(f) of the POSH Act to swiftly cooperate and make available information upon a request by the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace.”
It further directed in para 73 “…. The report of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace shall be transmitted to the Department of the appellant forthwith, which shall take further action as necessary under the POSH Act following the procedure as prescribed in the relevant service rules.”
The court did not direct that findings and recommendations shall be binding on the Respondent’s employer. Section 13(4) of the Act defines what the employer is expected to do with the recommendation of IC. We are covering this aspect later in this article. In my experience, proactive coordination between organisations helps avoid future confusion.
Under no circumstances should both the IC conduct the inquiry, as there is a risk of conflicting findings and of conflict with the principle of res judicata.
For contract employees, the contractor’s IC hold the primary responsibility, though principal employers must monitor compliance and intervene proactively to protect their workforce.
Other issues ICs are grappling with:
Dealing With Transgender
I have been asked multiple times if the provision of the existing POSH law covers transgender employees. While it is true that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, being a special law, covers sexual harassment of women at workplace, however, when the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which guarantees the right to self-identification, and the National Legal Ser. Auth vs Union of India & Ors judgment of the Supreme Court, read in conjunction, would extend protection to a transgender woman under the POSH Act.
I firmly recommend that organisations adopt gender-neutral anti-sexual harassment policies. This approach applies the same structured, sensitive process to all employees, irrespective of their gender orientation, under a unified
disciplinary framework.
Create a gender-neutral policy against any sexual harassment at the World of Work. Organisations have a right to extend the benefit of law as a part of policy to all…common procedure for all.
Remember, the cases of male employees being sexually harassed also need the same sensitivity, speedy redressal and confidentiality as in the case of female employees. A well-drafted gender-neutral policy empowers the IC to handle it effectively while withstanding potential legal challenges. While the Act itself does not empower ICs for non-women complaints, the company policy can. Such policies are not only legally robust when applied uniformly but also signal a strong organisational commitment to dignity and respect for everyone.
Weight of IC Recommendations
IC broadly make recommendations at two stages. One is at the interim stage, and the other is the final stage as punishment.
Interim relief under section 12 of the Act, recommendations are binding as section 12(3) states “On the recommendation of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the employer shall implement the recommendations made under sub-section
(1) and send the report of such implementation to the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be.” In this particular case, there seems to be no option for the employer to disagree with the committee’s interim recommendation.
For the recommendation on the conclusion of the inquiry under Section 13(3) of the Act, the Committee shall make appropriate recommendations if the allegation against the respondent has been proved. Section 13(4) says “The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him.”
A plain reading of the statute gives the impression that the Management must implement the recommendations within 60 days of receipt. In reality, the law permits the management to take a measured view of the recommendations.
In the case of Nutrition & Ors vs Suddhasil Dey & Anr, para 50, the Calcutta High Court observed “The expression ‘act upon the recommendation’ would mean either accept or reject the recommendation, for reasons to be recorded in writing. If the recommendations were binding, it would cease to be a recommendation and partake the character of a command which obviously is not the legislative intent. We hold that the recommendation of the ICC has to be seen and understood as a recommendation, nothing more, nothing less. It is entirely for the disciplinary authority to decide its next course of action upon giving the recommendation due consideration.”
The management is within its right to overrule the recommendations of an IC; however, the reasons for such actions (overruling) should be recorded in writing
Management does have the right not to accept the IC’s recommendations. The law is clear – management must ”act upon” the recommendation, which does not mean automatic execution. If management disagrees, it must document in writing its reasons for overruling or modifying the IC’s finding. Management is legally within its rights to do so, but the decision must be recorded.
Complaints Against IC Members
When a complaint is filed against an IC member, the member should be removed from that inquiry. It is good practice to establish a completely fresh IC for that case to avoid conflicts of interest or the perception of bias. This new IC should operate independently to ensure fairness and credibility.
Protection Of IC Members
Many IC members fear punitive action if their inquiry or recommendation is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of law or falls outside the bounds of reasonableness. The IC performs a quasi-judicial function and enjoys reasonable legal protection when acting in good faith to deliver justice. Courts assess the procedural diligence and fairness. It may overrule the IC’s findings and orally issue negative remarks for the IC’s failure to act diligently; however, to the best of my knowledge, the IC cannot be personally punished by the court for its acts. Responsibility for implementation failures lies with the employer.
To Conclude Practical Recommendations from Experience
- Adopting gender-neutral harassment policies that cover all employees
- Building genuinely skilled IC committees through structured, intensive, recurring training
- Maintain an odd number of members in committees for better decision-making.
- Implement meticulous documentation standards for every stage of inquiry. Help victims and build trust to overcome hesitation.
- Stay non-judgmental throughout the inquiry. Focus on facts, jurisdiction, and natural justice in every inquiry.
- Monitor both quantitative metrics (closure timelines, case volumes) and qualitative indicators (employee trust surveys, willingness to report).
- Regular awareness sessions for all employees, with specialised modules for managers.
The questions we face in POSH investigations are rarely straightforward. Every situation demands careful consideration of context, power dynamics, evidence, balanced judgment, empathy tempered by objectivity, rigorous adherence to process, and a genuine commitment to justice. Organisations that embrace POSH as a cornerstone of culture, rather than a mere regulatory obligation and foster dignity and respect as non-negotiable, are better equipped to attract and retain top talent.
The insights and perspectives in this article have been enriched by the generous contributions of the experts who brought both professional wisdom and deeply personal experience to a panel discussion on the topic hosted by Enabling World. Access the full conversation on YouTube and HRBuzzz, our Spotify channel.
Enabling World experts will be happy to support you to sharpen your teams probing and investigation skills through highly customised trainings. Click here for details
Also check our related Training Programmes :
• IC Certification Program – POSH
• Prevention of Workplace Harassment – For Senior Leaders
• Prevention of Workplace Harassment – For Managers
• Prevention of Sexual Harassment At Workplace
• POSH – eLearning
