Answer

Introduction

Despite being a landmark law guaranteeing safer workplaces, the POSH Act, 2013 has struggled to ensure consistent justice across institutions. Survivors continue to face structural and procedural hurdles, especially where emotional coercion, digital harassment, and power imbalances undermine reporting, evidence collection, and fair investigation.

Body

Structural Gaps

• Undefined “Informed Consent”: Consent obtained through manipulation or authority imbalance is not recognised under the Act.
  Eg: Educated perpetrators misuse trust, authority, and incomplete information to mask harassment as consensual behaviour.
• Silence on Emotional and Digital Harassment: Psychological coercion and digitally mediated harassment remain outside clear legal recognition, weakening protection.
  Eg: Emotional manipulation and digital evidence like disappearing messages, encrypted chats remain challenges, as offenders “operate in the grey zone of legality”.
• No Framework for Inter-Institutional Complaints: Misconduct across campuses or organisations cannot be linked or pursued collectively, enabling repeat offenders.
  Eg: POSH Act has “no mechanism” to track misconduct of visiting faculty across institutions.

Procedural Gaps

• Restrictive Complaint Time Limit: Justice must not come with an expiry date, especially in universities where trauma unfolds over years.
  Eg: The 3-month filing deadline discourages survivors who take longer to recognise exploitation and gather courage.
• Burden of Proof on Survivors: Vague definitions require direct evidence, often unavailable in behavioural harassment cases causing dismissal despite clear patterns of misconduct.
• Fear of “Malicious Complaints” Penalty: Survivors risk counter-action, which intimidates genuine complainants and deters reporting.
  Eg: The provision meant to prevent false cases “re-traumatises victims”.

Ways to Provide Justice for Survivors

• Expand Legal Definitions: Include informed consent, emotional manipulation, and digital harassment explicitly in the Act, recognising patterns of misconduct beyond physical evidence.
  Eg: Recognising deceit in relationships as harassment would cover subtle abuse highlighted in universities.
• Extend Complaint Filing Timelines: Remove or relax the three-month limit to prevent perpetrators gaining impunity through delayed reporting dynamics.
  Eg: Survivors in academic spaces often take semesters to gather courage and corroboration.
• Strengthen ICC Capacity: Mandatory legal-technical training and creation of a pool of external experts to support sensitive and evidence-based inquiries.
  Eg: Better-equipped ICCs can interpret encrypted digital communications and behavioural patterns.
• Introduce Mechanisms for Inter-Institutional Complaints: Create a framework to track repeat offenders across workplaces and campuses with mobility.
• Survivor-Centric Procedures: Replace intimidating language (“respondent” vs “accused”), protect complainants from retaliatory action, ensure psychological support.
  Eg: Removing the threat of “malicious complaint” penalty would prevent victims from being retraumatised by process.

Conclusion

For the POSH Act to deliver meaningful justice, reforms must strengthen definitions, timelines, survivor protection, and ICC capacity while recognising digital and emotional abuse. Empowering institutions with clearer tools and accountability is essential to ensure workplaces uphold dignity, safety, and equal opportunity for every woman.

DOWNLOAD PDF