Facing sexual harassment at work? What the POSH Act requires your employer to do

What the law says

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, usually called the POSH Act, puts the duty of a safe workplace on the employer. The Supreme Court has anchored this in the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Internal Committee is mandatory, and its composition matters. Under Section 4 of the Act, every employer of a workplace with 10 or more employees must constitute an Internal Committee headed by a senior woman employee, with at least half the members women and one independent external member. This is not a formality: the Supreme Court in Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar (2020) held that putting the bank's own panel lawyer in the independent member's seat created institutional bias that infected the whole proceeding. High Courts have set aside inquiry reports where the Committee was improperly constituted.

The inquiry is a real proceeding, not an HR formality. Under Section 11, the Committee has civil court powers to summon witnesses and call for documents. Courts treat its inquiry as a full departmental inquiry: once the Committee finds the allegations proved, the employer must act on its recommendations within 60 days and cannot run a fresh inquiry of its own to second-guess it.

The complaint window is 3 months, applied sensibly. Section 9 requires a written complaint within 3 months of the incident, extendable for reasons that prevented filing. The Calcutta line of authority in Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti v. Vaneeta Patnaik (2024) treats limitation as a mixed question of law and fact: the Committee must engage with the complaint rather than throw it out at the threshold as time-barred.

Retaliation is unlawful. Courts have quashed punitive transfers and show-cause notices issued to women after they complained. The complaint cannot lawfully become the reason for punishment.

Non-compliance costs the employer. Section 26 imposes penalties on employers who fail to constitute a Committee or comply with the Act, and courts have awarded substantial compensation where an employer's insensitive handling violated the complainant's fundamental rights.

The POSH route is civil and service-focused. It does not replace criminal law: you can complain to the Committee, go to the police, or both.

What you can do

1. Put the complaint in writing to the Internal Committee within 3 months of the incident. If more time has passed, file anyway and explain the delay; the Committee is required to consider it on merits.
2. Ask who is on the Committee. You are entitled to a body headed by a senior woman, with at least half women members and a genuinely independent external member. A defectively constituted Committee is a ground to challenge the process.
3. Give the Committee your evidence and witnesses. It has the power to summon people and documents, and its inquiry must follow natural justice for both sides.
4. If the findings are in your favour, the employer must act on them within 60 days. Follow up in writing.
5. If you face a transfer, a show-cause notice, or other retaliation after complaining, you can challenge it; courts have consistently protected complainants from such action.
6. You can also go to the police in parallel. The POSH process does not bar or delay a criminal complaint.

Cases that matter

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar, Supreme Court (2020). The "independent" member of the Committee was the bank's own panel lawyer. The Court held this institutional bias was a fundamental defect. Committee composition is substance, not paperwork.

Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, Supreme Court (2025). The Court restated the employer's strict statutory duty to secure a safe, hostile-free working environment, and held that the Committee at the woman's own workplace can inquire into a complaint even when the accused works for a different organisation. Where you work decides the forum, not where the harasser works.

Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, Supreme Court (2020). Substantial compensation was awarded where the employer's insensitive handling and procedural delays violated the complainant's fundamental rights. Mishandling a complaint is itself actionable.

Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti v. Vaneeta Patnaik, Calcutta High Court (2024). A complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold as time-barred; limitation under Section 9 is a mixed question of law and fact that the Committee must examine along with the merits.