Posh Act 2013

In a notable judgment upholding the principles of procedural fairness under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Bombay High Court in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Others highlighted the critical need for Internal Committees (ICs) to conduct impartial, transparent, and legally sound inquiries. The Court emphasized that while the POSH Act aims to protect women from harassment, it equally mandates adherence to natural justice for both complainants and respondents. The case involved Saurabh Kumar Mallick, a senior official, who challenged the findings of an Internal Committee that had found him guilty of sexual harassment. Mallick argued that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, including denial of opportunity to present his defense, absence of cross-examination, and lack of proper documentation of evidence. The Bombay High Cou...

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...