Posh Law - The Role of Conciliation in POSH Investigations

Not every case of sexual harassment at the workplace needs to culminate in a formal inquiry. The POSH Act, 2013 recognizes that in some situations, the aggrieved woman may prefer a less adversarial resolution. This is where conciliation plays a role offering an opportunity to resolve the complaint amicably, provided certain safeguards are respected. For the Internal Committee (IC), conciliation is a delicate process that requires sensitivity, neutrality, and strict adherence to law.

1. When Conciliation Can Be Considered

• Conciliation is an option available only at the request of the complainant.
• The IC cannot suggest or impose conciliation on its own.
• The request must be made before the start of the formal inquiry process.

This ensures that the complainant’s autonomy and comfort remain at the center of decision-making.

2. Prohibited Basis of Conciliation

The law expressly forbids monetary settlement as the foundation of conciliation. This is a critical safeguard against misuse and exploitation. Instead, conciliation can be based on:

• An apology or written undertaking from the respondent.
• Mutual agreement on behavior changes.
• Undertakings to avoid contact, maintain professional boundaries, or ensure a safe work environment.
• Other non-monetary resolutions acceptable to the complainant.

3. The IC’s Role in Conciliation

The Internal Committee must ensure that conciliation is conducted with fairness and transparency. Its responsibilities include:

• Facilitating the discussion while maintaining neutrality.
• Recording the terms of settlement in writing, ensuring clarity and enforceability.
• Sharing a copy of the settlement with both parties and the employer.
• Ensuring closure of the case once both sides confirm compliance.

Importantly, the IC must document the process in its records, since conciliation is considered a valid closure under the Act.

4. Benefits and Risks of Conciliation

Benefits:

• Provides a quicker, less confrontational resolution.
• Reduces emotional distress for both parties.
• Preserves workplace relationships when both parties are willing.

Risks:

• May be perceived as downplaying the seriousness of harassment if not handled carefully.
• Could leave the complainant feeling pressured if IC neutrality is not maintained.
• If terms are vague or unenforceable, disputes may resurface later.

Thus, conciliation must always be voluntary, well-documented, and respectful of the complainant’s dignity.

5. Why Step 4 Matters

Conciliation represents a unique balancing act between justice and resolution. Its importance lies in:

• Respecting choice: The complainant drives the decision, not the IC or employer.
• Preventing escalation: It allows workplace issues to be resolved constructively.
• Upholding compliance: When properly documented, it provides a lawful closure to the case.
• Building trust: Demonstrates that the organization offers multiple pathways for redressal.

Receiving a POSH Complaint the Right Way

Every POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) investigation begins with a single step: the receipt of a complaint. This is far more than an administrative requirement it is the moment where an organization demonstrates its commitment to dignity, respect, and fairness at the workplace. How this step is handled sets the tone for the entire investigation, influences employee trust, and ensures compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

1. How a Complaint Can Be Filed

The POSH Act requires all complaints to be made in writing. To make this process inclusive and accessible, the law allows flexibility:

• A handwritten or typed letter can be submitted directly to the Internal Committee (IC) or its Presiding Officer.
• An email from the complainant’s official or personal ID is equally valid.
• If the complainant is unable to write, the IC must assist her in recording and formalizing the complaint.

This ensures that the inability to draft or format a complaint never becomes a barrier to seeking justice.

2. Timelines for Submitting a Complaint

Time-bound redressal is at the heart of the POSH framework. The law prescribes:

• A complaint should be filed within 3 months of the incident.
• If harassment occurred over a series of incidents, the 3-month period is calculated from the last incident.
• The IC may extend this timeline by another 3 months, provided it is convinced that valid reasons (such as trauma, fear of retaliation, or unawareness) prevented timely filing.

This balance of structure and flexibility reflects the law’s understanding of the sensitive nature of sexual harassment cases.

3. Essential Contents of a Complaint

While the law does not enforce a rigid format, certain details strengthen the complaint and ease the inquiry process:

• Date, time, and location of the incident(s).
• Name, designation, or identifiable details of the respondent(s).
• Clear description of the incident(s): including words, actions, gestures, or
• behaviors.
• Impact on the complainant: emotional, professional, or physical consequences.
• Witnesses, if any, who were present or can corroborate.
• Supporting documents or evidence, such as emails, text messages, CCTV footage, or call logs.

Such details allow the IC to assess the complaint thoroughly and prepare for a fair inquiry.

4. The IC’s Role Upon Receipt

The Internal Committee’s responsibilities begin the moment a complaint is received. These include:

• Acknowledgment: Confirming receipt in writing and reassuring confidentiality.
• Registration: Logging the case with a unique reference ID for systematic record-keeping.
• Preliminary review: Assessing whether the matter falls under the scope of POSH. If not, redirecting to other appropriate channels (e.g., HR grievance redressal).
• Confidentiality: Ensuring details are shared strictly on a need-to-know basis. A sensitive, structured response demonstrates professionalism and builds the complainant’s trust in the process.

5. Why the First Step Matters Most

The first step of receiving a complaint is not just procedural — it is symbolic and foundational.

• It is a signal of trust: the complainant has chosen to rely on the IC and the organization for justice.
• It is a legal trigger: activating the POSH timelines and compliance obligations.
• It is the foundation of fairness: a properly received and documented complaint prevents misinterpretation, bias, or mishandling later.
• If mishandled, this stage can erode trust, compromise confidentiality, and even result in non- compliance with the law.

Conclusion

“When the First Word Matters” captures the essence of Step 1 in POSH investigation the receipt of complaint. This stage requires empathy, clarity, and strict adherence to legal procedures. By handling complaints with sensitivity and diligence from the very start, organizations not only comply with the POSH Act but also create a culture where employees feel safe to speak up and seek justice.

Gujarat High Court Upholds Principles of Fair Hearing in POSH Cases

Ajay Kumar Nagraj v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Others

In a vital judgment reinforcing the right to a fair hearing under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Gujarat High Court in Ajay Kumar Nagraj v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Others emphasized that an Internal Committee (IC) must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice while conducting inquiries. The ruling highlights that while the POSH Act is designed to protect women from harassment, the inquiry process must remain balanced and fair for both complainant and respondent.

The case involved Ajay Kumar Nagraj, a senior executive of ICICI Bank, who was subjected to an adverse finding by the Internal Committee following a complaint of sexual harassment by a female colleague. Nagraj challenged the inquiry on the grounds that he was not given adequate opportunity to present his defense, access documents, or cross-examine witnesses—violations that he claimed rendered the proceedings biased and unjust.

The Gujarat High Court, upon reviewing the facts, held that even though POSH proceedings are internal and aimed at ensuring workplace safety, the basic tenets of justice—right to be heard, access to evidence, and the opportunity to defend oneself—must be strictly followed. The Court ruled that any inquiry that denies these procedural safeguards risks being struck down as arbitrary and unlawful.

The judgment also shed light on the role of the Internal Committee as a quasi-judicial body. The Court pointed out that IC members must be properly trained not only in the legal provisions of the POSH Act but also in the broader principles of fairness, impartiality, and neutrality. A poorly conducted inquiry, even in genuine cases of harassment, can result in legal challenges and damage the credibility of the system.

Furthermore, the Court advised organizations to ensure that their POSH procedures include detailed guidelines on evidence sharing, representation, witness examination, and time-bound completion of inquiries. Such measures are necessary to protect the rights of both the complainant and the accused while upholding the larger purpose of the Act—to maintain safe and respectful workplaces.

This ruling is particularly significant for corporate India, where the rise in workplace harassment complaints necessitates robust internal mechanisms. The case serves as a reminder that while protecting women from harassment is paramount, justice cannot come at the cost of fairness and due process.

In conclusion, the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Nagraj v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Others reinforces the dual objectives of the POSH Act: ensuring protection for aggrieved women while safeguarding the procedural rights of respondents. A balanced approach to inquiry is essential for maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of the POSH framework.

Bombay High Court Stresses Fair Inquiry in Sexual Harassment Cases: Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors.

In a notable judgment upholding the principles of procedural fairness under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Bombay High Court in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Others highlighted the critical need for Internal Committees (ICs) to conduct impartial, transparent, and legally sound inquiries. The Court emphasized that while the POSH Act aims to protect women from harassment, it equally mandates adherence to natural justice for both complainants and respondents.

The case involved Saurabh Kumar Mallick, a senior official, who challenged the findings of an Internal Committee that had found him guilty of sexual harassment. Mallick argued that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, including denial of opportunity to present his defense, absence of cross-examination, and lack of proper documentation of evidence.

The Bombay High Court carefully reviewed the facts and found merit in the petitioner’s claims. The Court observed that any inquiry conducted under the POSH Act must strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and the statutory framework of the Act itself. It ruled that merely going through the motions of an inquiry without offering the respondent a fair chance to contest the allegations would render the proceedings invalid.

The Court further underscored that the Internal Committee functions in a quasi-judicial capacity and is duty-bound to ensure neutrality, transparency, and procedural integrity. This includes providing the respondent with a copy of the complaint, giving sufficient time for response, allowing cross-examination when necessary, and documenting findings with clear reasoning.

This judgment is particularly significant because it brings attention to a sometimes-overlooked aspect of POSH implementation—ensuring that the process is not only complainant-friendly but also fair to the person accused. The Court warned against treating the IC as a mere administrative body and stressed the need for IC members to be adequately trained in handling sensitive cases within the boundaries of the law.

For organizations, this case serves as a critical reminder to design POSH policies and procedures that comply not just with the letter of the law but with the spirit of justice. Employers must ensure that ICs conduct thorough, unbiased inquiries and respect the legal rights of both parties involved.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Saurabh Kumar Mallick reaffirms the importance of balanced, fair, and legally sound POSH inquiries. It reinforces the dual mandate of the POSH Act: to create safe workplaces while preserving the principles of natural justice and preventing misuse of the law.

Delhi High Court Reaffirms Importance of Natural Justice in POSH Inquiries: Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and impartiality under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Delhi High Court in Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Others (2018) clarified the essential procedural safeguards to be followed by Internal Committees (ICs) while handling complaints of sexual harassment. The Court held that mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to exclude a member from the Internal Committee; rather, there must be a real likelihood of bias established on substantive grounds.

The case involved a faculty member at Jawaharlal Nehru University who raised concerns over the composition of the Internal Committee, alleging potential bias and lack of impartiality. The petitioner sought the removal of certain committee members on the grounds of perceived conflict of interest and personal connections, fearing that these factors could influence the inquiry process.

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the plea, emphasized that the integrity of the POSH mechanism must be preserved by adhering to the established legal principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the apprehension of bias, to be valid, must be reasonable, tangible, and supported by evidence. Vague or unsubstantiated claims of potential prejudice are not sufficient to derail the inquiry or demand reconstitution of the committee.

The judgment also highlighted that POSH inquiries, though internal, carry significant consequences for both the complainant and the respondent. Therefore, procedural rigor, neutrality, and adherence to statutory provisions are essential. The Court advised that while the complainant's apprehensions must be respectfully considered, the functioning of the Internal Committee cannot be disrupted solely on the basis of subjective perceptions without objective merit.

Moreover, the ruling underscored that the purpose of the POSH Act is to create a safe and fair workplace environment where grievances are addressed efficiently, sensitively, and without delay. At the same time, the Act must not become a tool for harassment or manipulation, and both parties’ rights must be equally protected through fair and balanced procedures.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to all employers and Internal Committee members about the importance of maintaining neutrality, following due process, and being vigilant against both actual and perceived bias. IC members must be well-trained to handle complaints without prejudice while ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's decision in Somaya Gupta v. JNU strengthens the credibility of the POSH mechanism by reiterating the need for real, demonstrable concerns of bias before any structural changes to the committee can be made. This ensures that Internal Committees remain effective, impartial, and legally sound while upholding the principles of natural justice.

Kerala High Court Clarifies Written Complaint Requirement Under POSH Act in Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala

In an important ruling aimed at safeguarding procedural fairness under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Kerala High Court, in the case of Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala & Ors., has categorically held that a written complaint from the aggrieved woman is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating any inquiry by the Internal Committee (IC). The judgment sets clear boundaries on the initiation of proceedings, preventing misuse and ensuring due process.

The case arose when an individual challenged the initiation of a POSH inquiry that was based on an oral complaint and anonymous allegations rather than a formal written complaint as stipulated under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the Internal Committee had overstepped its jurisdiction by entertaining allegations that were not formally registered in writing, thereby violating the basic procedural safeguards built into the statute.

The Kerala High Court, in its analysis, underscored that the POSH Act provides a clear statutory framework for the handling of workplace sexual harassment complaints. Section 9 mandates that the complaint must be made in writing to the Internal Committee. The Court emphasized that this requirement is not a mere technicality but a substantive safeguard intended to prevent frivolous, malicious, or baseless complaints from triggering formal inquiries that can have serious reputational and professional consequences.

Recognizing the sensitivity of cases involving sexual harassment, the Court did acknowledge that in situations where the complainant is genuinely unable to provide a written complaint—due to disability, illiteracy, or severe trauma—the IC may assist the individual in reducing the oral complaint to writing. However, in the absence of any such incapacity, mere oral or anonymous allegations are insufficient to trigger proceedings under the POSH framework.

The judgment also addressed jurisdictional concerns, clarifying that an Internal Committee can only entertain complaints that fall within the definition of sexual harassment as provided under Section 2(n) of the Act, and that arise within the workplace context. The Court warned against the indiscriminate application of the law to matters outside its purview, thereby ensuring that the scope of the Act remains precise and well-defined.

This decision serves as a valuable reminder for employers, HR heads, and Internal Committee members that compliance with the procedural steps of the POSH Act is not optional. Organizations must ensure that complaints are received, documented, and processed strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements, and that IC members are adequately trained to adhere to these legal standards.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala & Ors. reinforces the foundational principles of natural justice and due process within the POSH framework. By mandating a written complaint as a necessary trigger for inquiries, the Court has struck a balance between the need to protect women from harassment and the equally important need to protect individuals from baseless accusations.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Conciliation is Mandatory Under POSH Act Before Formal Inquiry

In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and restorative justice under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. Kali Charan Sabat vs. Union of India & Others (W.P. No. 10021/2024) has held that conciliation under Section 10 of the Act is mandatory before an Internal Committee (IC) proceeds with a formal inquiry, provided the complainant is open to conciliation.

The case arose when Dr. Kali Charan Sabat challenged the initiation of an inquiry by the Internal Committee without being given the opportunity for conciliation as envisaged under the POSH Act. The petitioner argued that Section 10 of the Act provides for a mechanism where, upon receipt of a complaint, the IC must offer conciliation to the aggrieved woman before resorting to a full-fledged inquiry. The failure to follow this mandatory step, according to the petitioner, was a violation of the statutory procedure.

The Court carefully examined the legislative intent behind the POSH Act, which aims not only to provide protection against sexual harassment but also to ensure that redressal mechanisms are sensitive, non-adversarial, and conducive to maintaining workplace harmony. The judges noted that Section 10 explicitly provides for the possibility of conciliation and that this process is not merely optional but a preliminary mandatory step, provided the complainant consents to it.

The Court further highlighted that conciliation under the POSH Act serves as an important tool for early resolution of workplace disputes, especially in cases where the complainant seeks an amicable settlement or wishes to avoid the trauma of a formal inquiry. It was observed that the IC must inform the aggrieved woman of this right at the outset, and only upon her refusal or upon failure of conciliation should the formal inquiry commence under Section 11.

Importantly, the judgment underscores that conciliation cannot result in a monetary settlement but must focus on behavioral commitments, apologies, or other mutually agreeable terms that help rebuild trust and maintain dignity at the workplace. The Court warned that bypassing this essential step not only undermines the letter of the law but also risks causing unnecessary emotional distress to the parties involved.

This ruling has significant implications for employers, Internal Committees, and HR professionals. Organizations must ensure that their POSH policies and IC members are fully aware of this legal requirement. Failure to offer conciliation where appropriate could render inquiry proceedings invalid and expose the organization to legal challenges.

In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Dr. Kali Charan Sabat case strengthens the protective framework of the POSH Act by reaffirming that conciliation is a fundamental part of the process, not an optional step. This judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing justice with sensitivity, offering a pathway for early resolution while preserving the right to a formal inquiry when needed.