Book POSH Training Program

Ajay Kumar Nagraj v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Others In a vital judgment reinforcing the right to a fair hearing under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Gujarat High Court in Ajay Kumar Nagraj v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Others emphasized that an Internal Committee (IC) must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice while conducting inquiries. The ruling highlights that while the POSH Act is designed to protect women from harassment, the inquiry process must remain balanced and fair for both complainant and respondent. The case involved Ajay Kumar Nagraj, a senior executive of ICICI Bank, who was subjected to an adverse finding by the Internal Committee following a complaint of sexual harassment by a female colleague. Nagraj challenged the inquiry on the grounds that he was not given adequate opportunity to present his defense, access documents, or cross-examine witnesses—violations that he claimed rend...

Supreme Court Upholds Confidentiality and Fairness in POSH Proceedings: Malabika Bhattacharjee v. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College & Ors. In a landmark decision safeguarding both the principles of confidentiality and procedural fairness under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Supreme Court of India in Malabika Bhattacharjee v. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College & Ors. underscored the need for strict adherence to the confidentiality provisions of the Act while conducting Internal Committee (IC) inquiries. The case arose when Malabika Bhattacharjee, an assistant professor at Vivekananda College, filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a senior male colleague. During the proceedings, the IC allegedly failed to maintain the confidentiality of the complainant's identity and the case details, resulting in social stigma and professional isolation for the aggrieve...

In an important ruling aimed at safeguarding procedural fairness under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Kerala High Court, in the case of Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala & Ors., has categorically held that a written complaint from the aggrieved woman is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating any inquiry by the Internal Committee (IC). The judgment sets clear boundaries on the initiation of proceedings, preventing misuse and ensuring due process. The case arose when an individual challenged the initiation of a POSH inquiry that was based on an oral complaint and anonymous allegations rather than a formal written complaint as stipulated under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the Internal Committee had overstepped its jurisdiction by entertaining allegations that were not formally registered in writing, thereby violating the basic procedural safeguards built into the statute. The Kera...

In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and restorative justice under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. Kali Charan Sabat vs. Union of India & Others (W.P. No. 10021/2024) has held that conciliation under Section 10 of the Act is mandatory before an Internal Committee (IC) proceeds with a formal inquiry, provided the complainant is open to conciliation. The case arose when Dr. Kali Charan Sabat challenged the initiation of an inquiry by the Internal Committee without being given the opportunity for conciliation as envisaged under the POSH Act. The petitioner argued that Section 10 of the Act provides for a mechanism where, upon receipt of a complaint, the IC must offer conciliation to the aggrieved woman before resorting to a full-fledged inquiry. The failure to follow this mandatory step, according to the petitioner, was a violation o...

In today’s corporate world, a safe, respectful, and inclusive workplace is not just a goal — it's a necessity. One of the most significant steps taken in India toward ensuring workplace dignity was the introduction of the POSH Law , formally known as The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. But who really invented this law, and is it effective in making the corporate world a better place? Let’s explore. Who is the Inventor of POSH Law? While no single person is credited as the "inventor" of the POSH Law, its roots trace back to a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan case in 1997. This judgment laid the foundation for what would later become formal legislation in 2013. The credit for initiating and shaping the POSH law goes to: Vishaka Group of NGOs: A collective of women's rights groups that filed the petition. Justice Verma Committee : Formed after the Nirbhaya cas...

The Prevention of Sexual Harassment ( POSH ) Act, 2013 was introduced in India with the objective of providing a safe working environment for women. While this legislation was a much-needed step towards protecting women at the workplace, a common question that arises today is—what about men? Can men be victims of sexual harassment at the workplace too? And if so, are they protected under Indian law? This blog explores the often-overlooked issue of sexual harassment against men, their legal standing under the POSH Act, and the need for inclusive policies in India. Understanding the POSH Act The POSH Act primarily focuses on the protection of women from sexual harassment at workplaces. It defines sexual harassment, sets up internal complaint committees (ICC) in organizations, and lays down the procedures for filing and resolving complaints. However, the act clearly states that only women can file a complaint under it. This means that men (and even LGBTQ+ individuals) currently do not hav...