A Chandigarh college professor was recently dismissed after an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry under the POSH Act, 2013. 

Background of the POSH Act

• Bhawari Devi Case (1992): Bhawari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan trying to prevent child marriages, was raped due to the nature of her work. She did not receive justice.
• Vishakha Guidelines (1997): Following the Bhawari Devi case, the Vishakha organisation and four other groups petitioned the Supreme Court, which issued guidelines to protect women in the workplace. 
  • These guidelines functioned as law until the Central Government created the POSH Act in 2013.
• Structure of the POSH Act: The 2013 Act mandates that every office with more than 10 employees must establish an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which must be headed by a woman, to handle sexual harassment complaints.

Core Issues Under POSH Act

• Missing Notion of “Informed Consent”: The Act recognises “consent” but not “informed consent,” which prevents it from addressing situations where consent is obtained through manipulation, power imbalance, or emotional dependence.
• Emotional Manipulation Outside the Act’s Ambit: The law does not account for subtle psychological abuse such as deceit, emotional coercion, or betrayal, allowing perpetrators to stay within a grey zone that leaves no explicit evidence.
• Restrictive Limitation Period: The three-month filing limit prevents many survivors especially students from reporting harassment in time, as understanding and acknowledging manipulation often require a longer period.
• Softened Terminology: The use of the term “respondent” instead of “accused” reduces the perceived seriousness of the offence and trivialises conduct that would qualify as criminal outside the workplace.
• Burden of Proof: Vague definitions and evidentiary expectations place an excessive burden on survivors to produce direct proofs.
• Behavioural Assessment Tools: The Act provides no mechanism for committees to consider anonymous feedback, corroborative testimonies, or behavioural patterns, which are crucial in cases involving subtle or recurring harassment.
• Inter-Institutional Complaints: The law offers no framework for linking complaints across institutions, allowing repeat offenders in academia to evade accountability when misconduct spans multiple campuses.
• Intimidation Through Malicious Complaint Clause: The provision allowing action against “malicious complaints” discourages genuine survivors from reporting by creating fear of punishment if their complaint is not proved conclusively.
• Gaps in Handling Digital Evidence: The Act lacks updated definitions and procedures for technology-driven harassment; ephemeral messages, encrypted chats, and limited evidence make it unrealistic for untrained ICC members to handle digital cases.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

The POSH Act needs reforms to ensure that the promise of workplace safety becomes a consistent reality rather than a symbolic assurance.

DOWNLOAD PDF