POSH Cases: Madras High Court Highlights the Need for Sensitivity and Neutrality

V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management & Others

In an important judgment that underscores the need for sensitivity, neutrality, and procedural fairness in handling sexual harassment complaints, the Madras High Court in V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management & Others reinforced the responsibilities of Internal Committees (ICs) and employers under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Court emphasized that while the protection of the complainant is central to the Act, the rights of the accused must also be safeguarded through a fair and unbiased process.

The case involved V. Anantharaman, a senior official accused of sexual harassment, who challenged the Internal Committee’s inquiry process on grounds of procedural lapses, lack of neutrality, and failure to provide him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner contended that the IC's proceedings were one-sided, and the principles of natural justice were not followed, causing irreversible harm to his career and reputation.

The Madras High Court examined the case in detail and observed that the POSH Act, while designed to protect women from workplace harassment, cannot be used to conduct inquiries in a manner that prejudices the accused without proper examination of facts and evidence. The Court stressed that both complainant and respondent deserve to be treated with dignity, fairness, and respect for their legal rights.

A key observation made by the Court was that Internal Committees must maintain strict impartiality throughout the inquiry process and ensure that both parties are heard, given access to relevant documents, and permitted to submit their evidence or rebuttals. The Court also warned that employers have a duty to ensure that ICs are adequately trained in legal procedures, sensitivity, and ethical conduct to prevent misuse or mismanagement of the complaint process.

The judgment further highlighted that the POSH Act is not punitive in nature; its primary goal is to create a safe and inclusive workplace where grievances are addressed sensitively and equitably. The Court cautioned that wrongful or careless application of the Act not only causes injustice to individuals but also erodes trust in the system, which may discourage genuine complainants from coming forward in the future.

This ruling has far-reaching implications for organizations, particularly educational and financial institutions, where hierarchical structures may influence the handling of such sensitive cases. It serves as a reminder that Internal Committees must be independent, well-informed, and proactive in balancing the twin objectives of the POSH Act: prevention of harassment and assurance of procedural justice.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s decision in V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management reiterates that justice under the POSH Act must be swift, sensitive, and fair to all parties involved. The judgment strengthens the legal framework by ensuring that Internal Committees remain accountable, neutral, and legally compliant while addressing sexual harassment complaints.

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.

Calcutta High Court Reinforces Timely Action in POSH Cases: Bidyut Chakraborty v. Visva-Bharati University & Others

In a significant ruling highlighting the importance of timely action and procedural diligence under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Calcutta High Court in Bidyut Chakraborty v. Visva-Bharati University & Others emphasized that delay in initiating action on sexual harassment complaints can defeat the very purpose of the law. The Court made it clear that both Internal Committees (ICs) and employers have an obligation to act promptly and decisively when such allegations arise.

The case revolved around a senior university official, Bidyut Chakraborty, who faced allegations of sexual harassment raised by a woman employee. The complainant approached the Court after the university authorities delayed taking appropriate action on her complaint, effectively stalling the initiation of the formal inquiry under the POSH framework. The inaction led the complainant to seek judicial intervention to ensure enforcement of her rights.

The Calcutta High Court, while hearing the matter, pointed out that the POSH Act was enacted to provide a time-bound and efficient mechanism for addressing sexual harassment at workplaces. The Court held that unnecessary delays in forwarding complaints to the IC, initiating conciliation (if applicable), or commencing formal inquiry proceedings directly undermine the object of the legislation, which is to ensure a safe, dignified, and responsive work environment for women.

The judgment reiterated that employers and ICs are duty-bound to adhere to the timelines prescribed under the law—particularly the 90-day period for completion of inquiry as set out in Section 11(4) of the POSH Act. The Court cautioned that failure to act within these timeframes not only prolongs the harassment faced by the complainant but also exposes the organization to legal liability and reputational risk.

Additionally, the Court underscored the importance of sensitivity in handling such cases. While procedural compliance is essential, the manner in which the complaint is received, acknowledged, and processed must be in keeping with the spirit of the law, which focuses on creating an empowering space for victims to come forward without fear or stigma.

This ruling is a wake-up call for organizations and educational institutions to strengthen their POSH compliance frameworks. Timely formation of Internal Committees, clear complaint escalation pathways, regular training, and prompt redressal must become integral to every employer’s approach to workplace safety.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Bidyut Chakraborty v. Visva-Bharati University & Others reaffirms that justice delayed is justice denied in sexual harassment cases. The judgment ensures that the protective intent of the POSH Act is not diluted by procedural inaction or indifference, and sends a strong message about the need for swift, fair, and transparent resolution of complaints.