Evolving Landscape of POSH Act, 2013: An overview of significant developments

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”) provides a legal framework to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace and to provide a fair, confidential and timely redressal process for victims. However, over the last decade, the implementation of the PoSH Act has been riddled with challenges like improper investigations by Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) and Local Complaints Committees (“LCC”), lack of training and sensitization amongst concerned authorities and a lack of transparency in reporting of PoSH compliance by both, the private sector and the public sector.

To tackle such challenges, efforts have been made in recent years to shift from mere box-ticking compliance of the PoSH Act to effective on-ground implementation, supported by robust monitoring mechanisms, digital reporting systems, clearly defined roles for district and labour departments, and enhanced focus on capacity building and stakeholder awareness.

In this article, we examine case-law developments in the PoSH Act in 2025 highlighting how policy, administrative, and compliance structures are being strengthened to ensure that the objectives of the PoSH Act to ensure a safe, inclusive, and compliant workplaces are actually achieved.

1. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors.:

The matter arose from a sexual harassment complaint filed by students at Goa university against the appellant, Aureliano Fernandes with the ICC of the said university. After the completion of the proceedings, the ICC found Mr. Fernandes to be guilty and recommended termination of his service. Accordingly, his services were terminated, and he was disqualified from seeking future employment at the university. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a writ petition challenging the ICC’s findings before the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, particularly with respect to his termination. The High Court upheld the findings of the ICC and dismissed the writ petition. This led to an appeal being filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court in 2014. The principal contention before the Supreme Court was that whether the inquiry conducted by the ICC had been undertaken in undue haste without affording him a reasonable opportunity of defence resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.

On 12 May 2023, the Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the order of the Bombay High Court.¹ It held that the inquiry was conducted in unnecessary haste, without affording the appellant sufficient opportunity to present his defence contravened the principles of natural justice. Taking note of the procedural irregularities committed by the ICC in the matter, the Court issued the following directions:

1. mandated a time-bound verification exercise to ascertain whether ministries, state departments, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, universities, private hospitals, and other establishments have constituted ICCs or LCC as required under law;

2. details of such committees, including their composition, contact information of designated officers, internal policies, and prescribed procedures, must be made publicly accessible through official websites; and

3. members of these bodies be adequately sensitised and trained for better implementation of PoSH Act framework.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court was informed by the Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter that there were exposed significant gaps in compliance with its earlier directions of 2023. This prompted the Court to strengthen enforcement measures requiring. Through an order dated 03 December 2024, the Court directed the following²:

• Identification and notification of District Officers;
• Constitution/reconstitution of ICCs, LCCs, and Internal Committees;
• Compliance affidavits from all States and Union Territories; and
• Legal assistance for aggrieved women via Legal Services Authorities

In April 2025, the Supreme Court established a follow-up mechanism mandating proof of actual compliance through affidavits, including appointment of Nodal Officers under Section 6(2) of the PoSH Act and publication of their details on official portals.

Despite repeated efforts of the Supreme Court, compliance gaps persisted. This lead to the 12 August 2025 order whereby district-level verification was directed to confirm whether public and private establishments had actually constituted ICCs. District Labour Commissioners and state Chief Labour Commissioners were tasked with collecting data from registered establishments, passing it to District Officers for consolidation, and forwarding it through Chief Secretaries for submission to the Court.

The Court further mandated physical verification of committee constitution, moving beyond mere self-reporting. Verified data was directed to be uploaded onto the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s “She-Box” platform. Through these sustained directions, the Supreme Court transformed a PoSH dispute into a nationwide compliance audit, establishing that PoSH obligations constitute enforceable guarantees for workplace dignity and safety, not mere formalities.

2. X. v. Abraham Mathai³:

The case arose when the appellant, serving as Accountant-cum-Manager at Amstor Information Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., faced termination in November 2017. He approached the labour court for reinstatement while simultaneously lodging an oral sexual harassment complaint with the District Collector. The Collector referred the matter to the Labour Commissioner who conducted an inquiry, found the Managing Director guilty, and awarded ₹19,80,000 as compensation to the appellant.

The respondent challenged the Labour Commissioner’s findings before the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge held that the inquiry violated Sections 11 and 12 of the PoSH Act and Rule 6 of the PoSH Rules, as no written complaint was ever filed. The Kerala High Court further found that the respondent was denied the right to cross-examination, breaching principles of natural justice.

Upon appeal of the single judge’s order, a division bench of the Kerala High Court carefully examined Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act which defines sexual harassment. Stating that examples (i) to (v) in the section are illustrative, the bench held that any conduct must still qualify as unwelcome sexual behaviour, either explicit or implied and must relate to gender power imbalances or create a hostile workplace. Workplace issues like promotion denials or general managerial conflicts cannot be classified as sexual harassment without evidence of sexual conduct. Since the appellant had admitted that there was no physical contact, sexual demands made, or overt advances occurred, the division bench was of the view that the allegations made by the appellant did not the qualify as a ‘sexual harassment’ as per the definition. The High Court also ruled that the Labour Commissioner exceeded its jurisdiction by treating an ordinary employment dispute as a sexual harassment matter under the PoSH Act.

3. Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti⁴:

The appellant alleged sexual harassment incidents between September 2019 and April 2023. Rather than filing a timely complaint, she later claimed that subsequent administrative actions and an ICC preliminary inquiry extended the limitation period, arguing these were linked to the original misconduct. The LCC rejected the complaint as time-barred, noting that it fell outside both the initial three-month limit and the additional three-month extension permitted under Section 9 of the PoSH Act. The single judge of the Delhi High Court overturned this, finding that later administrative measures created an ongoing hostile work environment. The division bench reversed the decision of the single judge, holding that events that had occurred post April 2023 did not constitute sexual harassment and thereby, could not revive an expired limitation period.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 9 of the PoSH Act and held that the PoSH Act establishes a strict three-month limitation from the incident date, extendable by three months only upon written sufficient cause, thereby, creating an absolute six-month maximum. The Court emphasized that limitation constitutes a threshold issue where complaints are patently time-barred.

The Court further held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which may be decided at the threshold where the complaint is ex facie barred by time. While interpreting Section 3(2) which provides for prevention of sexual harassment, the Court clarified that expressions such as “in relation to” or “connected with” require a direct and proximate nexus with an overt act of sexual harassment. In the absence of any such act after April 2023, the subsequent administrative decisions were held to be independent service matters and not continuing acts of sexual harassment.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the complaint was irretrievably time-barred and that administrative or disciplinary actions, howsoever adverse, cannot be used to circumvent the limitation regime under the PoSH Act.

4. Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025⁵

On 30 May 2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 (“Accounts Rules“) through G.S.R. 357(E), effective from 14 July 2025. The amended Rule 8 mandates companies to disclose in their Board’s Report the following PoSH Act compliance details:

• Number of sexual harassment complaints received during the financial year;
• Number of complaints disposed of during the year;
• Number of cases pending for more than 90 days; and
• Statement of compliance with applicable laws.

These disclosures strengthen corporate governance accountability for PoSH implementation.

5. Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India⁶:

The dispute arose when an IAS officer serving as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution filed a complaint before her departmental ICC against an IRS officer posted with the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This led to the emergence of the issue as to whether jurisdiction flows from the situs of the alleged incident or from the respondent’s employer. The respondent argued that Section 11 of the PoSH Act restricts inquiries to cases “where the respondent is an employee” of the same establishment. He contended that, when read with Section 19(h), the law excludes respondents employed by different organizations.

Rejecting this restrictive construction, the SC in its judgment dated December 10, 2025 concluded the following:

1. In Section 11(1) of the PoSH Act, the word “where” refers to different situations, not to a physical workplace, and that the provision lays down three distinct scenarios. The contingencies in Section 11 are procedural triggers and not jurisdictional constraints on the ICC.

2. The word ‘respondent’ as defined in Section 2(m) of the PoSH Act does not require the ‘respondent’ to be someone working at the same workplace as the aggrieved woman.  The word ‘workplace’ as defined in Section 2(o) of the PoSH Act, is wide in scope to include ‘any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey’.

3. A narrow interpretation of provisions of the PoSH Act, would undermine its remedial social welfare intent since it would create significant practical hurdles for the aggrieved woman.

4. There lies a difference between the authority to inquire into the facts and the authority to enforce or act on the findings. While the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman or the employer may not have the authority to impose a penalty / punishment, its findings can certainly be acted upon by the employer of the ‘respondent’ under Section 13(3)(i), even if it is a different department.

5. Even though the ICC is constituted under a different department, it has a statutory backing in its constitution and functioning. If the recommendations of the ICC are not acted on by the employer, a right to appeal has been provided under Section 18 of the PoSH Act.

6. The ICC of the complainant’s workplace conducts the first-stage fact-finding inquiry. Upon receiving the findings and recommendations of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace, the employer of the ‘respondent’ and the Disciplinary Authority can then issue a chargesheet to the ‘respondent’ and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. In this inquiry, the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ may conduct the second stage formal inquiry, acting as the inquiring authority.

7. The employer of the ‘respondent’, even if it is a different department, must abide by its duties under Section 19(f) of the PoSH Act to cooperate with the ICC.

The decision clarifies that ICC jurisdiction is not limited by departmental boundaries. Thus, the SC maintains victim access as well as administrative due process by separating fact-finding from disciplinary control. It also enhances inter-departmental governance by eliminating jurisdictional deadlocks in cases involving officers from different services or ministries.

6. ABC v. Internal Complaints Committee (Akasa Air) and Others⁷:

The dispute arose when a captain employed by Akasa Airlines was accused by a trainee captain of creating an uncomfortable and unprofessional training environment. The ICC through its final order dated 12 February 2025, imposed disciplinary measures including a formal warning, mandatory PoSH Act sensitization training, prohibition on promotional upgrades, and temporary suspension of employment benefits. The captain challenged this order through a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, alleging violation of natural justice principles due to denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, absence of personal hearing, breach of confidentiality during proceedings, and non-consideration of his submissions.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that writs are normally maintainable against the State, its agencies, or private bodies only when they act in a public capacity and involve a public law dimension. Since the petitioner’s employer was a private body and the ICC had not refused to perform its statutory obligations, but had only held an inquiry into the matter, which was allegedly marred by procedural irregularities, the petitioner’s case did not fall within the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court further held that a distinction must be drawn between a complete failure to perform a public duty, which may warrant the issuance of a writ, and errors committed within the scope of the statutory powers, which must be remedied through the appeal process. The Court also held that the denial of cross-examination or an oral hearing does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is made out, especially when the basic facts are not in dispute and the delinquent employee is given an opportunity to respond to the preliminary findings. The Court therefore held that objections to the ICC’s findings on procedural grounds must normally be made through the appeal provided under Section 18 of the PoSH Act and not through the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

Our Thoughts:

The judicial developments of 2025 indicate a shift towards restoring procedural discipline, institutional clarity and constitutional balance within the PoSH framework. Across multiple rulings, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have sent across a consistent message that PoSH Act is not a symbolic rights enforcement mechanism, but rather a self-contained statutory system whose procedures, timelines and appeal mechanisms are to be adhered to.

The judiciary has also purposively interpreted the PoSH Act to prevent jurisdictional deadlocks by holding that ICC’s findings are not restricted to a single departmental office. In Sohail Malik v Union of India, the court’s findings ensured that women are not denied access to the PoSH redressal mechanism due to administrative separation of departments. This ruling enhanced the separation of inquiry from disciplinary control under the PoSH Act ensuring inter-departmental governance between ICCs of separate departments. Equally significant is the reaffirmation of procedural safeguards and statutory timelines as essential conditions for a valid inquiry.

While sexual harassment includes a broad nature of activities under the PoSH Act, the Courts have insisted that such activities are direct and proximate in relation to the actual complaint. This ensures that PoSH framework is not misused as a forum for labour and contractual disputes. By reinforcing jurisdiction of the Local Committees and upholding the sprit and the letter of the PoSH Act, the Courts have preserved the notion of keeping workplaces free from sexual harassment and protecting women’s rights. 2025’s jurisprudence strengthens the PoSH framework by making it functional, inclusive, and constitutionally aligned, while ensuring that dignity at the workplace is protected not through shortcuts, but through a controlled and just valid process.

---

The information contained in this document is not legal advice or legal opinion. The contents recorded in the said document are for informational purposes only and should not be used for commercial purposes. Acuity Law LLP disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident, or any other cause. 

1. 2023 INSC 527 ↩︎
2. Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 22553/2023 ↩︎
3. 2025:KER:57427 ↩︎
4. 2025 INSC 1106 ↩︎
5. Notification by Ministry of Corporate Affairs notifying Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025, dated 30 May 2025 (can be accessed at: https://ca2013.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/MCA-Notification-regarding-Companies-Accounts-Second-Amendment-Rules-2025-dated-30.05.2025.pdf? ) ↩︎
6. 2025 INSC 1415 ↩︎
7. 2025:BHC-AS:46643 ↩︎