The PoSH Act (2013) was a landmark step in workplace sexual harassment law in India. However, its implementation often remains superficial. Many companies form Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) on paper, yet harassment persists unchecked. Studies note that after years of training and orientation, little has changed for most women – apart from having an ICC in name only. Critics observe that employers treat PoSH compliance as a “checkbox” exercise. The result is a gulf between formal compliance and actual workplace safety India women deserve.
Structural Shortcomings of PoSH Committees
Legally, every employer with ≥10 employees must constitute an ICC with a female presiding officer and at least two other members (one from an NGO or activists). In practice, however, many organisations simply never set up these bodies. A 2023 survey of HR leaders found 59% had still not established the mandatory ICC. Smaller firms and unorganised workplaces are even less likely to comply. The Supreme Court itself has lamented a “sorry state of affairs” in PoSH enforcement, noting “lack of Internal Committees” in many organisations. Even when formed, committees are often poorly composed: lower-level staff or hesitant managers fill seats, and senior women are scarce. One report notes committees have “had a long way to go” because it’s “easier to say we have an ICC than to make it work”. In short, the structural design of PoSH compliance often collapses: committees exist on paper, but not in spirit or capability.
Functional Shortcomings: Awareness, Training and Due Process
Even a properly formed ICC can fail if members lack training and support. Surveys show a majority of workers — and HR staff — don’t understand the PoSH Act. For example, only about 42% of women employees reported knowing the Act well, and 40% of insecure women were unaware of its protections. Shockingly, 53% of HR professionals said they were confused by the law. The Act requires regular training (Section 24) and “sensitivity programmes”, but provides no clear guidance on how to conduct them. The result is ad hoc orientation sessions that leave ICC members unsure of procedures. Judicial criticism of internal committees highlights these gaps: in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), the Supreme Court faulted an ICC for “undue haste” and procedural irregularities, underlining how lax practices vitiate justice.
Other functional gaps include lack of anonymity/confidentiality (women fear speaking up if committees leak information) and inadequate outreach. The PoSH framework covers only formal workplaces – leaving many women (especially domestic and gig workers) without recourse. One expert noted that PoSH “primarily applies within an organisation’s internal ecosystem,” so harassment by clients or external parties often goes unaddressed. In sum, committees may exist but never achieve the psychological safety needed. As one lawyer bluntly asked: “Even if they implement [PoSH], have they really created a psychologically safe place for women to speak out?”. Without real awareness and fair processes, ICCs function more as publicity props than as engines of justice.
The Compliance–Safety Gap
These shortcomings highlight a key divide: paper compliance versus genuine safety. On paper, India’s PoSH rules seem strong (covering both formal and informal sectors, with penalties for employers). In reality, implementation is grossly uneven. Human Rights Watch reports that government agencies “failed to promote, establish, and monitor” complaints committees, leaving millions of women without remedy. Even corporate India is far from safe: recent data show a 29% spike in reported complaints (from 1,807 to 2,325 in one year), yet a growing backlog. In fact, pending PoSH cases at top companies jumped 67% in 2023–24. Only about 6–11% of pending cases are resolved each year, meaning hundreds of allegations languish unresolved.
Cultural factors exacerbate the gap. Many women still do not report incidents due to fear of stigma or career harm. Surveys stress that organizations often treat compliance as cosmetic: they have policies and posters, but no actual empowerment of victims. A POSH expert points out that while the law’s framework is “quite exhaustive,” the implementation gap is stark. This split manifests in harsh statistics: despite annual awareness campaigns, nearly half of women surveyed still worry about safety at work, and a 2024 Deloitte report found 43% experienced harassment/microaggressions in the past year. Clearly, ticking the PoSH box has not translated into safer, inclusive workplaces.
Case Law Highlights
India’s courts have both reinforced PoSH obligations and noted failures. In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), the Supreme Court took note of “serious lapses in enforcement” and issued directives to strengthen compliance. The Court emphasized that ICCs must adhere to due process and fairness. Elsewhere, the Supreme Court (Nagarathna J.) directed state authorities to actively ensure every workplace has a functioning ICC and even leverage legal aid bodies to assist women in filing complaints. However, courts have also recognized the system’s limits. In Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee v. ICC (Vivekananda College) (Calcutta HC, 2009), for example, the court broadened PoSH’s scope by holding that same-gender harassment claims are maintainable – a success of legal interpretation. Still, the broader takeaway is that litigation often underscores what administrative enforcement misses: committees alone cannot protect women if management and society do not take the Act’s spirit seriously.
Statistics on PoSH Implementation
Concrete data illustrate this chasm. Government figures (via the She-Box portal) show thousands of complaints filed annually, but few prosecutions. Industry reports tell a similar story: for India’s top 700 listed firms, reported PoSH cases jumped 29% year-on-year, and many companies saw triple-digit percentage increases in complaints since 2020. Yet resolution rates remain low (only about 10% of pending cases are closed within the year). Independent surveys mirror these findings. A 2024 Walchand Plus report found that 40% of women experiencing insecurity didn’t even know PoSH protects them, and 53% of HR managers admitted confusion about the law. Such gaps in awareness and enforcement correlate with the failures of ICCs: without trained members and transparency, neither aggrieved employees nor witnesses trust the system.
Solutions and Best Practices
Bridging the compliance–safety gap requires action beyond paperwork. Legal mandates provide clues: for example, Section 24 of the PoSH Act calls for training and workshops for ICC members. In practice, organizations should conduct regular, high-quality training and simulations for all employees so that PoSH becomes part of the culture, not an annual checkbox. Committees should meet frequently, with clear terms of reference and guaranteed confidentiality. The Supreme Court has urged full transparency – mandating that details of ICC composition and complaint procedures be publicly posted on workplace websites – and companies should implement this to build trust.
Other steps include strict oversight and accountability. Independent audits (by government labor offices or third-party auditors) should verify PoSH compliance as part of broader labor inspections. Employers must take ICC recommendations seriously: unimplemented or diluted findings should attract penalties (the Act allows fines, though these are rarely imposed). Institutions can also link managerial evaluations to PoSH metrics (e.g. timely inquiry completion and follow-ups) to ensure leadership buy-in. Finally, support for victims is critical: providing access to counseling, legal aid (via the SHE-Box online portal or union schemes), and interim relief (like leaves or transfers) demonstrates a genuine commitment to safety.
In essence, best practices merge compliance with commitment. Companies excelling in women’s safety do so not just by having a policy, but by fostering an inclusive culture – zero-tolerance for harassers, active mentoring of women, and ongoing dialogue on workplace norms. When management and employees internalize respect as a value, PoSH moves off the paper and into everyday practice, closing the gap between the law and the lived reality of women at work.
References
- The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Government of India (India Code database).
- Sur, Shreya. “POSH Act Strong On Paper, Weak In Execution, Says Legal Expert”. NDTV Profit, 8 Mar 2025.
- Walchand Plus, “Critical gaps exist in workplace safety for women: Report”. The Hans India, 4 Jan 2024.
- Pradhan, Kripashankar. “An unfulfilled promise: Women’s safety at work continues to remain a concern”. Economic Times, 10 Dec 2023.
- Human Rights Watch. “‘No #MeToo for Women Like Us’: Poor Enforcement of India’s Sexual Harassment Law”, New York (Oct 2020).
- Gandhi, Anuradha & Sharma, Isha. “Supreme Court’s directions to ensure PoSH compliance”. SS Rana & Co. Lawyers blog, 1 Nov 2024.
- Asha, Vikram & Verma, Sushant. “Power of the Internal Committee – Is the inquiry report mandatory?”. JSA Lexology, 9 Jun 2023.
- Basu, Ananya & Haldar, Chaitali. “Six Years after the POSH Act”. Partners for Law & Development (Feminist Law Archives), Feb 2022.
- VisionLaw Legal. “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) – Training & Inquiry Guidelines” (Section 4, PoSH Act).
- Ministry of Women & Child Development (India) – SHE-Box portal and PoSH Rules (official portal).