26.11.2025

Sexual Harassment at Workplace: POSH Act, 2013

Subject: Social Justice & Governance

Context

Despite the POSH Act, workplace sexual harassment persists due to weak implementation, poor awareness, and procedural barriers. These challenges hinder gender equality and highlight the need for stronger institutional mechanisms and survivor-centric reforms.

About the Law

Background

• Enacted in 2013, based on the Supreme Court’s Vishaka Guidelines (1997).
   
• The guidelines treated sexual harassment as a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21.
   
• The Act formalised these protections through mandatory committees and procedures.
   

Mandatory Complaint Mechanisms

Internal Committee (IC)

• Mandatory in establishments with 10+ employees.
   
• Handles complaints, inquiries, and recommendations for action.
   

Local Committee (LC)

• For workplaces with fewer than 10 employees or when the respondent is the employer.
   
• Operates at the district level to ensure accessibility.
   

Key Challenges and Gaps

1. Burden of Proof

• Complainants face difficulty proving interpersonal, often private misconduct.
   
• Results in under-reporting and fear of retaliation.
   

2. Ambiguity in Definitions

• Terms such as unwelcome behaviour or hostile environment lack practical clarity, causing inconsistent assessments.
   

3. Pattern-Based Harassment

• Harassment is often repetitive behaviour, but the law focuses on discrete incidents, limiting effective recognition.
   

4. Emotional Harassment and Coercive Consent

• Emotional manipulation, coercion, and fraudulent consent are not explicitly covered, despite being common forms of abuse.
   

5. Inter-Institutional Misconduct

• No clear framework for addressing misconduct by visiting faculty, consultants, or individuals operating across institutions.
   

Procedural Window for Complaints

• Complaints must be filed within three months of the incident.
   
• Extendable to six months for valid reasons.
   
• Survivors often face trauma-related delays, making strict timelines restrictive.
   

Conclusion

The POSH Act offers a strong foundation but suffers from procedural gaps, definitional ambiguity, and limited survivor protection. Clearer standards, better oversight, and broader recognition of coercion and repeated behaviour are vital for safer workplaces.