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.

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.

Who is the Inventor of POSH Law and Is It Good for the Corporate World?

In today’s corporate world, a safe, respectful, and inclusive workplace is not just a goal — it's a necessity. One of the most significant steps taken in India toward ensuring workplace dignity was the introduction of the POSH Law, formally known as The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. But who really invented this law, and is it effective in making the corporate world a better place? Let’s explore.

Who is the Inventor of POSH Law?

While no single person is credited as the "inventor" of the POSH Law, its roots trace back to a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan case in 1997. This judgment laid the foundation for what would later become formal legislation in 2013.

The credit for initiating and shaping the POSH law goes to:

Vishaka Group of NGOs: A collective of women's rights groups that filed the petition.

Justice Verma Committee: Formed after the Nirbhaya case in 2012, this committee provided crucial recommendations on women’s safety, including at workplaces.

Indian Parliament: Which finally enacted the POSH Act in 2013 based on the Vishaka Guidelines and public demand.

So, while not one person invented the law, it is the result of efforts by women's rights activists, the judiciary, and legislative bodies.

What Does the POSH Law Aim to Do?

• The primary objectives of the POSH Act are:
• Prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
• Provide a clear and effective complaint and redressal mechanism.
• Promote a safe and empowering environment for women employees.

It mandates every company with more than 10 employees to form an Internal Committee (IC) to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and resolve them in a time-bound manner.

Is POSH Law Good for the Corporate World?

The answer is a resounding Yes, and here’s why:

1. Promotes Workplace Safety

Employees — especially women — feel safer and more empowered knowing their concerns will be taken seriously and acted upon.

2. Enhances Company Reputation

A company that actively follows POSH compliance is seen as ethical, progressive, and employee-friendly. This builds trust among clients, investors, and future hires.

3. Boosts Productivity

A harassment-free workplace leads to better mental health, reduced attrition, and increased focus — all of which improve overall productivity.

4. Protects Employers Legally

By implementing POSH policies and awareness training, companies can avoid legal risks and potential lawsuits.

Challenges and the Way Forward

While the POSH Act is a great step, it still faces challenges:

• Many companies treat it as a checkbox activity rather than building real awareness.
• Fear of retaliation or being judged may stop women from coming forward.
• There’s a need for gender-neutral laws as men and non-binary individuals may also face harassment.

To truly make a difference, organizations must go beyond compliance — they must create a culture of respect and transparency.

Conclusion

The POSH Law, though not invented by a single individual, is a collective achievement of India’s legal and social reform movement. It’s a powerful tool for the corporate world — not just to protect, but to empower. With proper implementation and awareness, it can help build safer, healthier, and more inclusive workplaces for everyone.