Introduction
For many organizations, the POSH Act has become a masterpiece of paperwork, yet for the women it was designed to protect, the process often remains a hollow promise. More than a decade has passed since the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 was enacted, and most Indian organizations now boast of being technically compliant. They have Internal Committees on paper, they conduct annual training sessions, and they display compliance certificates in their lobbies. However, the reality on the ground is different as experienced by women seeking redress. We are seeing a rise in “POSH fatigue”, a state where the mechanical fulfillment of checklists has replaced the search for actual justice. In my experience as an employment law practitioner, I have seen many cases where the framework is followed while the core objective of workplace safety is forgotten.
Shifting from Form to Fairness
The POSH Act was never intended to be a mere procedural figurehead. Rooted in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241, the law aimed to establish safe and dignified working environments. It perceives Internal Committees as quasi-judicial bodies that must be independent, sensitive, and fair. When an organization treats the IC as a hurdle to be cleared rather than a sanctuary for truth, it strips away the law’s intended purpose. This shift toward “formalism” means that organizations are often more concerned with the font on the policy than the fear in the room during an inquiry. The law requires a proactive stance on prevention and prohibition, yet many entities remain reactive, waiting for a legal crisis before engaging with the complexities of gender-based power dynamics.
The Procedural Obsession: When the Means Justify the Ends
One symptom of POSH fatigue is an obsession with timelines at the expense of substance. Inquiries are turned into checklists where the objective is “closure” rather than “truth.” When the focus shifts entirely to meeting the 90-day statutory deadline, the quality of the investigation inevitably suffers. Internal Committee proceedings often become adversarial and “over-lawyered,” which intimidates complainants who are already in a vulnerable state.
We often see committees prioritize the logistics of a meeting over the psychology of the testimony. Conversely, some committees are too informal, treating serious allegations as “misunderstandings” that can be settled with a simple apology. In both scenarios, the human element of the grievance is lost, and justice becomes a mere by-product of an administrative exercise. The goal of an IC must be to create a space where evidence is weighed with care, not just a folder that can be archived to satisfy a labor inspector.
Structural Realities and the Competency Gap
While the POSH Act grants committees the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, their practical performance often falls short due to a significant competency gap. Many members lack adequate training in legal reasoning or trauma-informed questioning. Furthermore, organizational hierarchies can unconsciously bias internal members. An IC member who reports to a respondent in their daily professional life cannot realistically be expected to remain entirely impartial without rigorous institutional safeguards.
We frequently see committees misinterpret legal principles like the “preponderance of probabilities.” Unlike criminal law, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, POSH inquiries rely on the likelihood of an event having occurred based on the available evidence. When committees fail to understand this distinction, they often dismiss valid complaints simply because there were no eyewitnesses to a private incident. This misunderstanding of evidentiary standards is one of the primary reasons why justice remains evasive.
Judicial Scrutiny: Why Courts are Rejecting "Shallow" Inquiries
Courts are increasingly intervening to examine flawed inquiries. In a significant regulatory shift, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) notified the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025. This was a watershed moment for corporate India. Companies are now required to disclose granular complaint data in their Board Reports, including the exact number of complaints received, disposed of, and those pending for more than 90 days.
This move from private HR records to public board-level disclosure means that a “paper-only” compliance strategy now carries significant reputational and regulatory risk. The judiciary and the government are sending a clear message: procedural compliance cannot hide outcomes that are fundamentally unfair or investigations that are intentionally stalled.
New Jurisdictional Standards: The 2026 Reality
A vital evolution occurred through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. (2025). The Court clarified that a complainant can approach the Internal Committee at her own workplace even if the respondent works for another organization or department. This is essential for the modern, interconnected economy where professionals from different firms often collaborate on projects.
This ruling prevents jurisdictional dead ends where a woman is told her employer “has no power” over a third-party harasser. It ensures that women have an accessible remedy regardless of institutional boundaries. For ICs, this means the inquiry process has become more complex, often requiring coordination between two different organizations to gather evidence and enforce recommendations.
The Silence Factor and the Nuance of Retaliation
Despite official protective measures, the fear of retaliation remains the primary reason why workplace harassment goes unreported. Complaints against senior leaders or “high-value” employees are often met with institutional skepticism. A “victim-blaming” lens can seep into reports, questioning why a complainant didn’t report sooner or why she continued to interact with the respondent. Retaliation is rarely as overt as a termination letter. Instead, it manifests as poor performance reviews, social isolation, or being removed from key projects. While the Act prohibits retaliation, it is poorly enforced at the ground level. Many ICs view their job as finished once the inquiry report is submitted, failing to monitor the workplace environment in the months that follow. This lack of post-inquiry oversight is a significant contributor to POSH fatigue.
Reviving the Framework: Shifting the Mindset for 2026
To move beyond tokenism, organizations must shift their approach toward delivering fair and substantive outcomes:
Trauma-Informed Training: Committees must move beyond basic “legal awareness” and receive training on handle sensitive testimony without re-traumatizing the complainant.
Evidentiary Analysis: ICs need deep-dive sessions on how to weigh circumstantial evidence and apply the “preponderance of probabilities” correctly.
Empowered External Members: The external member should not be a silent witness but an active voice who can challenge management if the inquiry becomes biased.
SHe-Box Integration: Registration on the central SHe-Box portal is now a critical compliance expectation for centralized monitoring by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
AMLEGAL REMARKS
The POSH Act is a landmark in Indian law, but its success lives in the culture of the office rather than a filing cabinet. Formal adherence is not a substitute for courage and institutional ethics. With new 2025 and 2026 mandates requiring detailed public disclosures and cross-organizational accountability, companies can no longer afford to treat this as a checklist. Real justice is found in the trust an employee feels when they speak up. It is found in a committee that listens with empathy and decides with integrity. Without that trust, compliance is merely a shadow without substance. Organizations that fail to bridge the gap between “paper compliance” and “actual justice” will find themselves increasingly vulnerable in a legal landscape that is finally demanding more than just immaculate paperwork.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com