Legally, yes.
If the CHRO is a senior woman employee, the POSH Act permits it.

But POSH governance is not just about what is legally allowed.
It is also about trust and perception.

The Practical Reality

In most organisations, the CHRO is clearly seen as management.

And in the absence of the CEO or Managing Director, the CHRO is often the authority responsible for:

• Issuing warnings or penalties
• Executing transfers or terminations
• Driving corrective and preventive actions

This makes the CHRO a key decision-maker in implementing POSH outcomes.

Where the Concern Arises

When the same role:

• Oversees or anchors the POSH inquiry, and
• Implements its outcomes,

questions around independence and neutrality can arise — even if the process is fair.

In POSH matters, perception matters as much as procedure.

What Works Better

Many organisations now follow a stronger approach:

• Appoint a senior woman employee outside HR as Presiding Officer
• Keep HR in a facilitative and advisory role

This separation builds:

• Employee confidence
• Credibility of the Internal Committee
• Trust in the POSH process

The Real Question

The question isn’t:
“Can a CHRO be the Presiding Officer?”

It is:
“Will employees trust the process?”

Not sure if your POSH structure inspires trust?

👉 Learn more at www.cecureus.com
👉 Speak to us for a confidential POSH governance review

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Can a CHRO Be the Presiding Officer Under the POSH Act? appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

In PoSH compliance, one question repeatedly challenges Internal Committees HR leaders and employers.

Does this incident fall within the scope of the PoSH Act?

Often incidents are dismissed simply because they occurred outside office premises or beyond office hours.
This is precisely where the Direct Nexus Test becomes critical.

The test helps determine whether an incident has a legally actionable connection to the workplace even if it did not occur within the physical office.

What is the Direct Nexus Test

The Direct Nexus Test asks one core question.

Is there a clear causal connection between the alleged conduct and the workplace or employment relationship

The focus is not on location or time.
The focus is on connection power and consequence.

An incident is considered work related when it is linked to
– The employment relationship
– Workplace hierarchy or authority
– Work enabled access or proximity
– Official work duties travel or events
– Impact on dignity safety or participation at work

If work created the context or power that enabled the conduct a direct nexus exists.

Legal foundation under the PoSH Act

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention Prohibition and Redressal Act 2013 adopts a deliberately broad definition of workplace.

It includes any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment.

This covers
– Work travel
– Offsite meetings
– Client locations
– Employer arranged transport
– Work related digital communication

The legislative intent is clear. Employee safety cannot be confined to office walls.

Supreme Court clarity on nexus and limitation

Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti

A significant judicial interpretation of the Direct Nexus Test came from the Supreme Court in Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, decided on 12 September 2025.

Case summary

Ms Vaneeta Patnaik a faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences filed a sexual harassment complaint against Dr Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti the then Vice Chancellor.

She alleged a series of unwelcome sexual advances between 2019 and April 2023.
She further claimed that administrative actions taken against her later were retaliatory for rejecting those advances.

The complaint was filed on 26 December 2023.

Procedural history

The Local Complaints Committee dismissed the complaint as time barred since the last alleged incident occurred in April 2023.

A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court overturned this decision holding that a continuing hostile work environment extended the limitation period.

The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge order and restored the LCC dismissal.

The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench decision.

It ruled that under Section 9 of the PoSH Act a complaint must be filed within three months of the last incident.
This period may be extended by another three months only if sufficient cause is shown.

Since the complaint was filed nearly eight months after the last alleged incident it exceeded the maximum permissible limitation period.

Key legal principles clarified by the Court

Limitation under the PoSH Act is strict

The Court emphasised that statutory timelines cannot be diluted casually.
Limitation is a substantive requirement under the PoSH Act.

Continuing wrong versus subsequent administrative actions

This distinction is central to the Direct Nexus Test.

The Court clarified that

• A continuing wrong must flow directly from the sexual harassment
• Subsequent institutional or administrative decisions do not automatically qualify

In this case the administrative actions taken after April 2023 were held to be institutional decisions without a direct causal connection to the alleged harassment.

As a result they could not extend the limitation period as a continuing wrong.

In simple terms,

• Not every adverse action after harassment is a continuation of harassment.
• Only actions with a demonstrable direct nexus qualify.

Applying the Direct Nexus Test in practice

Example 1 Harassment during work travel

A senior employee harasses a junior colleague during an official business trip.

The travel is mandated by the employer
The accommodation is work arranged
The power equation exists solely due to employment

A direct nexus exists.
The incident falls squarely under the PoSH Act.

Example 2 Transfer after rejection of advances

An employee is transferred after refusing a senior colleague.

The critical question is not whether the transfer was inconvenient.
It is whether the transfer was causally linked to the rejection of advances.

If retaliation is demonstrable a direct nexus exists.
If the transfer is a routine administrative decision without causal linkage limitation does not extend.

This distinction was clearly reinforced by the Supreme Court.

Example 3 Digital harassment outside office hours

A senior repeatedly sends unwelcome messages to a subordinate using professional access.

The relationship exists only because of work.
The power imbalance is workplace created.

Time and location are irrelevant.
A direct nexus is established.

Why the Direct Nexus Test matters for organisations

• When organisations misapply this test they often.
• Dismiss valid complaints as personal disputes.
• Avoid uncomfortable inquiries.
• Create silence fear and disengagement.
• When applied correctly the test enables.
• Fair jurisdictional decisions by Internal Committees.
• Consistent legally defensible outcomes.
• Greater employee trust in redressal systems.

The Direct Nexus Test is not about expanding liability. It is about owning responsibility where work enables harm.

Conclusion

The Direct Nexus Test shifts PoSH compliance from a location focused lens to a connection focused one.

The Supreme Court ruling in Vaneeta Patnaik reinforces two important truths

• Limitation under the PoSH Act must be respected
• Nexus must be real demonstrable and causal

For employers and Internal Committees the most important question remains

Did work create the power access or context that made this conduct possible?

That is where meaningful PoSH accountability truly begins.

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Understanding the Direct Nexus Test under the PoSH Act : Legal meaning, Judicial clarity and Workplace relevance appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Creating safe, respectful, and harassment-free workplaces is no longer optional — it is a legal, ethical, and cultural imperative. As companies strive to strengthen their PoSH compliance and uphold employee safety, Internal Committees (ICs) play a crucial role in ensuring fair investigations and meaningful corrective actions.

However, in my work with organisations across industries, I have observed a troubling trend:
one perpetrator repeatedly harassing multiple colleagues over a period of time.

Most ICs conclude the case with termination – and while this protects the immediate workplace, a deeper question arises:

Are we solving the problem… or simply relocating it?

When a guilty individual is terminated without any behavioural reform, the risk doesn’t go away.
An unreformed perpetrator is released into society, potentially joining another organisation and continuing the same pattern of harassment.

As experts committed to safe work cultures, our responsibility must go beyond punitive action.
We must focus on rehabilitation, behavioural correction, and long-term risk mitigation.

This is why I strongly advocate that ICs consider mandating counselling for perpetrators of sexual harassment, whether or not they remain employed.

Below are three essential questions organisations must evaluate carefully.

Are counselling therapies like CBT and relapse-prevention models effective for perpetrators of sexual harassment?

Research across behavioural sciences, criminal psychology, and workplace misconduct studies shows that structured counselling – particularly Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) – is effective in addressing the root causes of inappropriate behaviour.

CBT and relapse-prevention programs help offenders:

• Identify and reframe distorted thinking patterns
• Understand power dynamics and entitlement beliefs
• Recognize emotional and behavioural triggers
• Build empathy and accountability
• Develop healthier behavioural alternatives

These evidence-based therapies are widely used for preventing repeat sexual offences and workplace misconduct. While not a standalone cure, counselling provides a structured path toward behavioural change – something termination alone cannot achieve.

Can counselling reduce repeat harassment? How many sessions are typically required?

Yes – counselling can significantly reduce recidivism among sexual offenders when delivered through a consistent, structured program.

Key findings from global research:

• Long-term, multi-session interventions are far more effective than one-off sessions
• CBT-based treatment models show measurable reductions in repeat sexual harassment and misconduct
• Behavioural reform often requires 8–20 sessions or more, depending on the nature and severity of the behaviour
• The offender’s willingness to participate is the strongest predictor of success

Counselling is most effective when the goal is not only to correct behaviour, but to reshape the mindset that led to the harassment.

If the IC mandates counselling, can counsellors provide progress reports to the IC or management?

Yes – with boundaries.

While counsellors must maintain confidentiality, they can provide structured progress summaries when counselling is mandated as part of corrective action under the PoSH framework. These updates typically include:

• Attendance and participation levels
• Willingness to engage and reflect
• Observable behavioural shifts or persistent challenges
• Recommendations for continued support or risk mitigation

High-level reports ensure ethical transparency while enabling organisations to make informed decisions about safety, reintegration, or separation.

Confidentiality is respected – and workplace safety is preserved.

Why Mandating Counselling Is a Responsible Organisational Practice

Simply terminating a harasser may feel like a clean solution, but it does not address the behavioural issue at its core.
To truly break the cycle of harassment, organisations must adopt a more holistic approach.

Mandated counselling helps:

• Reduce the risk of repeated harassment
• Address underlying behavioural and psychological factors
• Reinforce organisational commitment to responsible PoSH implementation
• Protect future workplaces and communities
• Build a culture of accountability and reform—not just compliance

A workplace becomes safer not just by removing misconduct, but by preventing its recurrence.

Instead of discarding the “bad apple,” we must invest in understanding and correcting the behaviour – for the sake of all workplaces that individual may enter in the future.

Conclusion

As organisations mature in their PoSH implementation, it is time to expand the IC lens from punitive measures to preventive and rehabilitative strategies. Counselling is not a soft option –  it is a scientifically grounded, ethically responsible, and legally permissible corrective tool.

By mandating counselling for perpetrators, we not only ensure justice within our organisations but also contribute to building safer workplaces across society.

The post Why Organizations Should Mandate Counselling for Sexual Harassment Perpetrators – An IC Expert’s Perspective appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

In modern workplaces, photography has become routine. Team-building events, celebrations, offsites, and even casual days at work often lead to employees clicking pictures of one another. But Indian law has become significantly stricter about photo privacy, especially after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) 2023.

This raises two critical workplace questions:

1. Is it legally permissible to take photographs of colleagues at work?
2. Is it permissible to post or share those photographs on social media or messaging platforms?

Legally, both actions require clear, voluntary, informed consent, and failing to comply can lead to serious civil and criminal consequences.

Why Photo Privacy Matters in the Workplace

Workplaces are not public spaces; they are professional environments where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A simple photo, when shared without consent, can lead to:

• Mental distress
• Workplace harassment
• Damage to professional reputation
• Misuse on digital platforms
• Legal liability for individuals and organisations

With stricter laws under the DPDP Act, organisations must treat photographs as personal data and ensure responsible handling.

1. Is It Legal to Take Pictures of Colleagues at Work?

Not without consent.

Under the DPDP Act 2023, photographs qualify as personal data. Capturing a person’s image without clear consent is considered unauthorised data processing.

In a workplace setting, this means:

• Clicking candid images of colleagues without informing them is not permitted.
• Photographing employees during events requires upfront disclosure.
• Consent must be voluntary, specific, and documented wherever possible.

Repeatedly photographing a colleague after they object can also be considered:

• Harassment
• Stalking under IPC Section 354D
• Violation of the constitutional right to privacy

2. Is It Legal to Share or Post Workplace Photos of Colleagues?

No. Sharing requires explicit, informed consent.

This includes sharing photos on:

• WhatsApp groups
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• Company social media pages
• Internal newsletters
• Websites, brochures, and promotional material

Once a photo is published, the legal responsibility increases because it becomes data dissemination and may trigger various provisions of the DPDP Act, IT Act, and IPC.

Even if someone permitted you to take their picture, that does not mean they consent to publication. This distinction has been repeatedly reaffirmed by Indian courts.

Legal Framework Governing Workplace Photography in India

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) 2023

The DPDP Act treats photos and videos as personal data. Any individual or organisation that collects, stores, or shares images becomes a Data Fiduciary and must:

• Obtain explicit consent
• Limit use to the stated purpose
• Ensure safe storage and processing
• Delete data upon request
• Notify individuals of their rights

Violations can result in:

• Investigations by the Data Protection Board
• Heavy monetary penalties
• Reputational and compliance consequences

2. Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 66E – Privacy Violation

Criminalises capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of private body parts without consent.
Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment or fine up to Rs. 2 lakh, or both.

Sections 67 and 67A – Obscene and Sexually Explicit Content

Criminalise publication or transmission of sexually explicit or obscene images.
Punishments range from 3 to 5 years imprisonment and significant fines.

3. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 354C – Voyeurism

Watching, capturing, or sharing private moments without consent.
Punishment: 1 to 3 years for first offence; higher for repeat offences.

Section 509 – Outraging the Modesty of a Woman

Posting a woman’s photograph without consent, in a way that causes insult or harassment.
Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and fine.

Section 500 – Defamation

Sharing images that damage someone’s reputation.
Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment and/or fine.

4. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Right to Privacy

The Puttaswamy Judgment (2017) firmly established privacy as a fundamental right.
Unauthorised photography or sharing of images in a workplace environment can qualify as a violation of Article 21, enabling individuals to approach High Courts or the Supreme Court.

Workplace Scenarios: What is Allowed and What is Not?

Scenario 1: Group Photo at a Team Lunch

Permitted only if all individuals have given consent to be photographed.

Scenario 2: Posting Team Outing Pictures on LinkedIn

Requires prior consent from every person visible in the image.

Scenario 3: Photographing a Colleague Without Their Knowledge

Not permitted. Violates DPDP Act and privacy rights.

Scenario 4: Sharing Photos on Messaging Apps Without Checking

Illegal if recipients did not consent.
Could trigger IPC 509, IPC 500, or even IT Act sections depending on misuse.

Scenario 5: Company Using Employee Photos in Recruitment or Marketing Collateral

Requires separate written consent, distinct from routine HR or joining documentation.

Scenario 6: Employee Repeatedly Taking Photos After Requests to Stop

Considered harassment or stalking under IPC 354D.

Relevant Case Laws Strengthening Photo Privacy

1. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court held that privacy is intrinsic to Article 21. Any unauthorised photography can violate this right.

2. Cases Under Section 66E (IT Act)

Courts have ruled that photographing or circulating images without consent, even outside traditionally private spaces, violates privacy.

3. Judicial Interpretation of Consent

Several High Courts have emphasised that:
Consent to being photographed is not equal to consent to publication.
This is critical for workplaces that use photos for branding or social media.

What Offences Can Non-Consensual Workplace Photography Lead To?

What Should Employees and Organisations Do?

For Employees

• Always seek permission before taking photos.
• Never post workplace images without explicit approval.
• Respect colleagues who prefer not to be photographed.

For Organisations

• Include a Photo and Video Policy in the Code of Conduct.
• Use DPDP-compliant consent forms for events, training sessions, and marketing use.
• Display notices when photography or videography will occur.
• Train employees on digital hygiene and workplace privacy.
• Provide clear channels for grievances related to photo misuse.

What to Do If Your Photo Privacy Is Violated

1. Request immediate takedown from the individual or platform.
2. Escalate to HR or the Internal Committee (if harassment is involved).
3. File a complaint under DPDP Act with the Data Protection Board.
4. Approach Cyber Crime Cell under IT Act provisions.
5. Seek constitutional remedy through the High Court for Article 21 violations.

Conclusion: Photo Privacy Is a Legal and Ethical Responsibility in Workplaces

Workplace photography must be governed by consent, transparency, and respect. With the DPDP Act 2023, Indian law has made it clear that employees have the right to control their images, and misuse—intentional or accidental—can lead to serious legal consequences.

In high-trust workplaces, respecting photo privacy is essential not only for compliance but for building a safe, inclusive, and psychologically secure culture.

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Workplace Photo Privacy in India: Is It Legal to Click or Share Photos of Colleagues? appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

At CecureUs, we often get urgent questions from employees and managers:

“Our management is trying to influence the Internal Committee (IC) proceedings. Is this allowed under the PoSH Act?”

The short answer is no. Management cannot interfere in IC proceedings. The Internal Committee is meant to function independently, and any interference is against the law.

Why Independence Matters

When an employee files a complaint under the PoSH Act, 2013, the IC acts like a judicial body. That means:

• It must act fairly and independently.
• Its proceedings are confidential and final.
• Neither local management nor overseas leadership can change the outcome.

If managers or leaders try to meet the complainant, respondent, or witnesses privately, it undermines the IC’s purpose of ensuring neutrality, objectivity, and fairness.

What the Law Says

Section 16 – Confidentiality

• This section strictly prohibits sharing details about the complaint, proceedings, or recommendations.
• Any manager who discusses the case with the complainant or respondent directly is violating this rule.

Section 19 – Duties of Employer

• The employer must support the IC and not interfere with it.
• This support includes providing resources, ensuring safety, and respecting the IC’s independence.

Section 26 – Penalties

• Violating the Act can result in fines up to ₹50,000.
• Repeat offences lead to higher penalties and can even result in cancellation of business licenses.

In Rashi v. Union of India (2023), the Delhi High Court reinforced this by stating:

“The entire thrust of the complaints committee procedure is that the complainant employees are assured objectivity and neutrality in the inquiry, insulated from the employers’ possible intrusions.”

For Employees

• Trust the process; the IC is there to ensure fairness.
• Speak up if you believe management is interfering— the law supports you.
• Know your rights: Confidentiality and neutrality are guaranteed under the PoSH Act.

For Managers

• Do not intervene. Even if you want to “help,” getting involved directly can put the company at risk.
• Support without swaying. Give the IC resources and space but never try to influence the outcome.
• Respect confidentiality; avoid discussions with complainants, respondents, or witnesses.

Key Takeaways

• The IC is an independent body under the PoSH Act.
• Confidentiality is essential.
• The employer’s role: Assist and empower, not interfere.
• Interference amounts to a violation, with legal and reputational consequences.

Bottom line

At CecureUs, we remind every organization that PoSH compliance is not just about having a policy. It’s about respecting the independence of the IC.
Management interference not only weakens trust, but it also breaks the law.

Please reach out to us for any queries on PoSH compliance for your company!

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Can Management Interfere in PoSH IC Proceedings? appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

October is observed as Mental Health Awareness Month worldwide. For HR and Internal Committee (IC) members, this is a timely reminder that workplace sexual harassment cases under the PoSH Act, 2013 often involve not just legal and procedural aspects, but also mental health considerations.

According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 5 working adults experience a mental health challenge each year. In workplace harassment cases, the impact is often sharper — trauma, anxiety, or depression can directly affect how complainants and respondents engage with PoSH inquiries.

Handling such cases requires not only compliance but also sensitivity and empathy. That’s where a trauma-informed approach comes in.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Complainant’s Mental Health During Proceedings

In a large IT company, a young employee reported inappropriate behavior by her manager. During the inquiry, the complainant experienced panic attacks and severe anxiety. The IC recognized that continuing long sessions would worsen her trauma. They adapted by allowing shorter hearings, involving the company counselor, and permitting breaks.

Learning: Mental health struggles do not weaken the validity of testimony; ICs must create a safe environment for fair proceedings.

Case Study 2: Respondent’s Claim of Mental Illness

In a Tamil Nadu manufacturing setup, a respondent facing multiple harassment allegations claimed he was undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder and requested the proceedings be delayed indefinitely. The IC sought medical documentation. Upon expert verification, it was found that while the respondent had a medical condition, it did not impair his ability to respond. The inquiry continued with reasonable accommodations, ensuring timelines were not violated.

Learning: Mental health claims must be respected but also verified to avoid misuse as a delaying tactic.

FAQs on Mental Health in PoSH Inquiries

1. What is a Trauma-Informed Approach in PoSH inquiries?

A trauma-informed approach means recognizing that people involved in a PoSH case may be carrying the weight of trauma—before, during, or after the incident. Instead of questioning their credibility or rushing through procedures, the IC adapts its process to minimize further harm.

Key principles include:

• Safety: Ensuring both physical and emotional safety during hearings.
• Choice: Allowing flexibility, such as shorter sessions or breaks.
• Trust: Being transparent about the process and timelines.
• Empowerment: Giving both complainant and respondent a fair voice.
• Collaboration: Engaging mental health professionals when needed.

2. What if the complainant was mentally unwell at the time of the incident?

Yes, their testimony is still valid. The Internal Committee (IC) must ensure sensitivity in recording statements. Mental illness does not automatically discredit the complainant. Instead, the IC should consider medical evidence, contextual details, and corroboration through witnesses, documents, or digital records.

3. What if the complainant develops trauma after the incident?

It is common for complainants to experience anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress after workplace harassment. If the complainant is mentally unwell post-incident, the IC may allow breaks during proceedings, involve a counselor, or permit a support person to be present. This ensures the inquiry remains trauma-informed and does not re-victimize the individual.

4. What if the respondent is not mentally fit to defend themselves?

Natural justice requires that the respondent be given a fair chance to respond. If the respondent produces medical documentation of mental incapacity, the IC can pause proceedings until they are fit to participate. However, unnecessary delay tactics must be avoided—timelines under the PoSH Act (90 days for inquiry, 10 days for report submission) remain critical.

5. Can either party request a medical or psychological evaluation?

Yes. If either the complainant or respondent cites mental health as a concern, the IC may request a medical or psychological assessment to verify claims. This helps the IC balance compassion with fairness. The IC should document why such an evaluation was sought and how it influenced the findings.

6. Can the IC allow a support person during depositions?

Yes. While the law does not explicitly mandate it, ICs can permit a counselor, family member, or mental health professional to accompany the complainant, especially in trauma cases. This does not compromise confidentiality if proper non-disclosure agreements are signed.

7. What if mental health is cited as a defense or a delaying tactic?

The IC should evaluate the authenticity of the claim with the help of medical records. If the claim appears genuine, reasonable accommodations must be made. If it appears to be an excuse to stall proceedings, the IC can proceed with inquiry while documenting why it considered the defense weak.

8. Why is counselling support important for both complainant and respondent?

Counselling provides emotional stability, helps individuals process the incident, and prepares them to participate constructively in the inquiry. For the complainant, it reduces trauma and fear of retaliation. For the respondent, it helps them cope with stress and engage in the process responsibly.

Many organizations extend Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) to both parties during a PoSH case. This not only safeguards mental well-being but also reinforces trust in the system.

9. What should IC members keep in mind for trauma-informed inquiries?

Here’s a quick checklist for ICs to follow:

• Allow breaks if either party feels overwhelmed
• Document mental health concerns with care
• Engage EAP/counsellor support early
• Avoid leading or aggressive questions
• Keep proceedings confidential and non-intimidating

This checklist helps ICs balance fairness with empathy while staying within legal timelines.

Key Takeaway

Mental health concerns—whether of the complainant or the respondent—do not invalidate PoSH proceedings. Instead, they call for additional sensitivity, safeguards, and documentation by the IC. By adopting a trauma-informed approach, ensuring access to counselling support, and following a structured IC checklist, organizations can uphold both justice and employee well-being.

At CecureUs, we guide ICs and organizations on handling complex PoSH inquiries with fairness and sensitivity. Need support for your IC training or case management? Reach out to us today.

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Mental Health and PoSH Inquiries : Frequently Asked Questions appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) has recently launched an enhanced version of the SHe-Box portal (https://shebox.wcd.gov.in/)  to improve compliance under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

This upgraded platform now serves as a centralized repository for complaint management and Internal Committee (IC) details across organizations in India.

Its purpose can be understood through several key objectives and features:

• Single‑window complaint filing: It enables any woman—whether in the public or private sector, including formal, informal, or unorganized work—to register complaints of workplace sexual harassment online
• Secure & confidential handling: The portal masks the identity of the complainant—only the IC/LC Chairperson can see complaint details—to preserve confidentiality
• Direct delivery to Internal/Local Committees (IC/LC): Complaints registered in the portal are routed automatically to the relevant Internal committee of the complainants workplace. If a workplace committee is not registered, the portal notifies nodal officers to ensure timely registration
• Complaint tracking: Complainants receive a tracking ID and can monitor the status of their complaint in real-time online
• Centralized monitoring & data repository: The portal maintains records of all ICs/LCs and complaint statistics across India, allowing government authorities to track filings, disposal, and pending cases
• Enhancing employer accountability: Employers must register their IC details, upload compliance reports, and ensure timely committee action to fulfill PoSH obligations

Salient Features

• Digital access across sectors: Available to women in public, private, organized, and unorganized sectors
• Bi-/multilingual support: Provides resources and compliance information in Hindi and English; regional-language support remains limited
• Time-bound inquiry enforcement: PoSH mandates the IC/LC investigate and resolve a complaint within 90 days, enforced via the portal’s monitoring dashboards
• Employer compliance management: Organizations upload annual PoSH compliance reports, training records, and IC member details via the portal

⚖️ Supreme Court Direction on Mandatory Disclosure

In the case of Aureliano Fernandes Vs State of Goa & Ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that all establishments with more than 10 employees must ensure their Internal Committee (IC) and Nodal Officer details are uploaded to the SHe-Box portal, in line with the requirements of the POSH Act. 

🏢 What’s New for Private Sector Organizations?

With the recent update, private organizations can now register on the SHe-Box portal. While registration is not currently mandatory, it is strongly recommended as a proactive compliance measure and to ensure readiness for future regulatory expectations. 

📝 How to Register on the SHe-Box Portal: Step-by-Step

1. Visit the SHe-Box Portal
2. Select “Private Head Office Registration”
3. Fill in all required details including:

3. • Nodal Officer’s name and contact
   • Presiding Officer/Legal Officer/Compliance Officer details

4. Upload the necessary organizational documents
5. Submit the form

Private-Head-Office-User-Manual – The reference guide (User Manual) to register on the SHe-Box portal.

📩 What Happens After Registration?

• A “Registration Successful” notification will appear on the screen.
• You will receive an acknowledgment email confirming your submission.
• Within 7–10 working days, login credentials will be shared via email.

🔄 Post-Login: Key Action Points

Once you receive login access:

1. Update the Internal Committee (IC) details for your head office.
2. If your organization has branch offices, navigate to the ‘Workplace’ section in the portal and:

2. • Add each branch office
   • Upload branch-specific IC details separately

Keeping this information up to date ensures complete and transparent compliance with POSH Act requirements.

In Summary:

Frequently asked questions:

1)Why Should You Register?

Even though registration is not mandatory yet, it’s a best practice that helps your organization:

• Ensure regulatory alignment
• Strengthen POSH governance
• Enhance trust and transparency
• Be prepared for audits and inspections
• Facilitate seamless online complaint management through the SHe-Box portal.
  
• Maintain a centralized digital record of your Internal Committee and workplace details.

For more details please refer here – https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx

Should all companies, institutions, factories etc. register? 

2) Is it mandatory to register? 

In which all states is it mandatory to register? 

The organization may nominate any authorized employee (typically HR, Compliance, Legal, or Administration) as the SHe-Box Nodal Officer.

The Nodal Officer is responsible for:

• Coordinating SHe-Box registration
  
• Updating workplace and IC details
  
• Maintaining information on the portal
  
• Coordinating complaints received through the portal
  

The Nodal Officer does not have to be an Internal Committee member, and many organizations prefer appointing an HR or Compliance representative.

Yes.

The portal now allows organizations to edit Head Office details, including changing the Nodal Officer.

Navigate to:

Workplace & IC Management → Edit Head Office

You can update:

• Nodal Officer name
  
• Designation
  
• Mobile number
  
• Email ID
  
• Address
  

After saving the changes, the updated information becomes effective.

Yes.

If the Nodal Officer’s registered email ID is updated:

• the new email ID becomes the login username
  
• the existing password remains unchanged
  

The Nodal Officer should thereafter log in using the updated email address.

No.

Each Nodal Officer should have a unique email ID.

The portal generally does not permit the same email address to be used for multiple Nodal Officer roles.

The Head Office is registered first.

Thereafter, every branch/workplace should be added under Workplace Details, along with its respective Internal Committee (where applicable).

9. I have registered but haven’t received login credentials.

After verification by the District Nodal Officer, login credentials are generally sent to the registered Nodal Officer email.

If credentials are not received:

• use the Forgot Password option
  
• check spam/junk folders
  
• contact the District Nodal Officer or SHe-Box technical support if required.
  

10. Who receives complaints filed on SHe-Box?

A complaint submitted through SHe-Box is routed to the appropriate Internal Committee based on the registered workplace. The Presiding Officer can access and manage the complaint through the Presiding Officer login.

11. Does the Presiding Officer receive a separate login?

Yes.

Once the IC is registered, the Presiding Officer receives separate login credentials to access complaints assigned to the Internal Committee. This login is different from the Nodal Officer login.

Yes. The SHe-Box portal now allows organizations to edit the details of their registered Internal Committee (IC) after registration.

You can update information such as:

• Presiding Officer details
  
• Internal Committee members
  
• External Member details
  
• Member contact information
  
• Member designation (where applicable)
  

To make changes, log in to the SHe-Box portal and navigate to Workplace & IC Management, select the relevant workplace, and use the Edit IC option to update the committee details.

It is advisable to update the portal promptly whenever there is a change in the constitution of the Internal Committee to ensure that the information remains accurate and compliant with the PoSH Act.

Note: Any changes made should reflect the current Internal Committee formally constituted by the employer through an official order or notification. The portal should always mirror the latest valid IC composition.

The post Everything You Need to Know About the New SHe-Box Portal Update appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Starting July 14, 2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has rolled out new compliance requirements aimed at improving workplace safety and accountability. As part of these changes, companies will now need to include detailed disclosures about sexual harassment complaints in their Board Reports.

These updates come under the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025, as notified by Notification No. G.S.R. 357(E) dated May 30, 2025

Here is what is changing- 

Mandatory Disclosure of Sexual Harassment Complaints:

Under the revised rules, companies are now required to make specific disclosures in their Board Reports related to sexual harassment at the workplace.

As per Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the amended Rule 8(5)(a) of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014, companies must:

i. Provide a statement that the Company has complied with the provisions constituting an Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 

ii. Disclose the following details regarding the complaints of sexual harassment:

1. Number of sexual harassment complaints received in the year
2. Number of complaints disposed off in the year
3. Number of cases pending more than 90 days.

Consequences of Non-compliance:

Non-compliance with these provisions can lead to penalties under Section 134(8) of the Companies Act, 2013. The fines are as follows:

• Company – ₹3,00,000
• Every officer in default: ₹50,000

However, certain relief is provided to companies of specific categories such as One Person Companies, Small Companies and Startups wherein the penalty is halved and is subject to the maximum limits below:

• Company – INR 2,00,000
• Officer in default – INR 1,00,000

Changes in a nutshell: 

 It is noteworthy that the previous mandate was a superficial and general one while the changes bring in stricter reporting and encourage better enforcement and oversight. The notification also serves as a reminder that POSH at the workplace is more than a checklist activity. Companies must be proactive in ensuring compliance to the POSH Act as well as take steps to ensure workplaces are safer for all.

Official Resources

•  https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks/notifications.html

• MCA-Notification-regarding-Companies-Accounts-Second-Amendment-Rules-2025-dated-30.05.2025 (1)

Please reach out to us for any queries on Mandatory POSH Compliance for Companies.

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Mandatory POSH Compliance for Companies from July 14, 2025 appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

In workplaces across India, the implementation of the PoSH Act, 2013 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace) is not just about policies and posters — it’s about ensuring that survivors feel heard and that complaints are handled with fairness and thoroughness. A critical part of this process? Witnesses.

But not all witnesses are the same.

Let’s explore how different types of witnesses play a role in sexual harassment inquiries, using a real-world-inspired scenario — and the legal position when there are no witnesses except the victim.

🔍 The Scenario:

An employee, Rhea, files a complaint of sexual harassment against her manager, Karan, alleging that he made inappropriate comments and touched her without consent during an office party. She submits her complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

Here’s how various types of witnesses might come into play:

👁️‍🗨️ 1. Eyewitness

Who: A colleague who was present at the party and directly saw the inappropriate behavior.
Example: “I saw Karan put his arm around Rhea even though she looked visibly uncomfortable.”
Value: High — provides firsthand, direct evidence.

🗣️ 2. Hearsay Witness

Who: Someone who didn’t witness the incident but heard about it from others.
Example: “The next day, my teammate told me that Karan had misbehaved with Rhea.”
Value: Limited — often not admissible as primary evidence, but may be used to support patterns or provide leads.

💔 3. Victim Witness

Who: The complainant, Rhea herself.
Role: Shares her account, emotions, and the impact of the harassment.
Value: Central to the case — her testimony initiates the inquiry.

🎯 4. Expert Witness

Who: A psychologist or counselor, if Rhea sought therapy.
Example: “Rhea experienced emotional distress and anxiety post-incident.”
Value: Adds credibility to the psychological impact of the incident.

📸 5. Corroborative Witness

Who: A co-worker who didn’t see the act but noticed Rhea’s distress afterward.
Example: “She was crying in the restroom after the party.”
Value: Strengthens the narrative by supporting emotional or behavioral aftermath.

📜 6. Character Witness

Who: A person speaking about either party’s behavior patterns.
Example (for Rhea): “She’s always been professional and focused on work.”
Example (for Karan): “He has a history of crossing boundaries at office events.”
Value: Can establish credibility or pattern of conduct.

❓ 7. Hostile or Adverse Witness

Who: Someone initially cooperative but turns evasive or defensive.
Example: A friend of the accused who denies everything and shows aggression during questioning.
Value: Can still provide useful insights, especially if their behavior indicates bias or conflict of interest.

👀 8. Circumstantial Witness

Who: Someone who observed surrounding events or context.
Example: “Karan had been drinking heavily that night and followed Rhea around.”
Value: Offers indirect evidence that helps paint the full picture.

⚖️ What if there is no other witness? Is victim’s word enough?

Yes — the sole testimony of the victim can be enough under Indian law if it is trustworthy and consistent.

🧑‍⚖️ Relevant Case Law #1:

Vishaka & Others vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)
This landmark case led to the formation of the PoSH Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that a woman’s right to a safe workplace is fundamental, and that inquiries should not dismiss a complaint merely due to lack of witnesses.

🧑‍⚖️ Relevant Case Law #2:

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra (1999)
The Supreme Court held that even attempts at physical advances without successful contact can constitute sexual harassment.
Importantly, it stated that “a victim’s testimony must be given due weight” and should not be disbelieved solely due to lack of corroboration.

“The absence of eyewitnesses is not a ground to disbelieve the victim.”
— Supreme Court of India

📚 Other Case Laws Involving Witness Testimonies in PoSH Cases

🧑‍⚖️ Case Law #3: Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs. Union of India (2010)

This case emphasized the importance of following due process during PoSH inquiries, including giving both parties the chance to bring witnesses.

The court ruled that the credibility of witnesses, their consistency, and the manner in which statements are recorded — all affect the final outcome.

🧑‍⚖️ Case Law #4: D.V. Apparao vs. V. Krishna Kumari (Andhra HC, 2005)

In this case, co-worker testimonies played a key role. The court ruled in favor of the complainant after corroborative witnesses confirmed behavioral patterns of the accused and supported the victim’s emotional response.

✅ What Should ICCs Take Away from This?

• A victim’s word carries weight — especially when credible, consistent, and delivered with clarity.
• The absence of witnesses does not invalidate a complaint.
• All types of witnesses — even those who saw the emotional impact, not the act itself — can be useful.
• ICCs must assess witness statements objectively, and avoid biases.
• Courts give high regard to due process: let the inquiry be fair, timely, and documented.

💡 Final Thoughts

In cases of sexual harassment, witnesses can make or break a case. But even when there are no witnesses, the law supports survivors — provided the ICC investigates thoroughly and fairly.

Let’s work toward a culture where truth is respected, not just proven, and where workplaces are safe for every individual — seen or unseen.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Types of Witnesses in PoSH Inquiries.

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post Who Saw What? Understanding Types of Witnesses in PoSH Inquiries appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Addressing POSH Cases in Factories: Understanding the Process

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), mandates every organization, including factories, to establish an Internal Committee (IC) to handle sexual harassment complaints.

However, a question often arises: Is a separate departmental inquiry required in factories after the IC concludes its investigation?

Let’s explore how POSH cases are addressed in factories and whether a departmental inquiry is necessary.

How Does the POSH Act Address Complaints in Factories?

Under the POSH Act, the IC is the key body responsible for investigating complaints of sexual harassment. The IC’s role involves:

1. Conducting a detailed inquiry based on the complaint.
2. Submitting a report with findings and recommendations.
3. Recommending disciplinary actions, including penalties for the accused, if necessary.

The IC’s inquiry is designed to be thorough and legally binding, making it sufficient for many organizations to act upon.

Do Factories Require a Separate Departmental Inquiry?

Factories often have their own service rules or Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal (CDA) regulations, which may demand a departmental inquiry for certain disciplinary actions, especially major penalties like termination. This has led to differing judicial interpretations:

Cases Where IC Findings Are Deemed Sufficient

Some judicial rulings, like the Madras High Court’s decision in The Management of Christian Medical College and Hospital v. Mr. SG Dhamodharan, have emphasized that employers should act on the IC’s recommendations directly, without initiating an additional inquiry.

Cases Requiring a Departmental Inquiry

On the other hand, judgments like the Karnataka High Court ruling in Dr. Arabi U v. The Registrar Mangalore University suggest that when service rules mandate a formal departmental inquiry for severe penalties, employers should conduct one to ensure compliance with those rules.

Why Do Judicial Interpretations Differ?

The necessity of a departmental inquiry depends on:

1. Internal Service Rules: Factories operating under CDA Rules or similar frameworks may be legally bound to conduct a separate inquiry for certain actions.
2. Nature of the Penalty: For minor penalties, IC findings are often sufficient. For major penalties like dismissal, organizations might need to adhere to their internal procedures.

What Are Service Rules, and Do All Organizations Define Them?

Service rules are a formal set of policies governing employee conduct, work conditions, and disciplinary procedures. Not all organizations have them, but they are more common in factories and large establishments.

If an organization lacks defined service rules, statutory frameworks like the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, or state-specific Shops and Establishments Acts serve as default guidelines.

CDA Rules: Applicability Beyond Factories

Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal (CDA) Rules are not confined to factories. While factories and industrial units often operate under such rules due to mandates like the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, CDA frameworks are also widely adopted in:

1. Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs): Examples include banks, railways, and other government-owned organizations.
2. Large Private Corporations: Many corporate organizations implement CDA-like rules for structured employee management.
3. Service Sector Companies: IT firms and service providers adopt tailored versions of CDA Rules to streamline internal processes.
4. Educational Institutions and Healthcare Organizations: Universities and hospitals use CDA Rules for effective governance and consistency in disciplinary actions.

The applicability of CDA Rules depends on the organization’s size, nature, and regulatory environment, making them relevant across sectors to maintain workplace discipline.

Best Practices for Factories Handling POSH Cases

1. Define Clear Service Rules: Factories should ensure their rules align with the POSH Act while clarifying if departmental inquiries are needed.
2. Train the IC: Internal Committees must be well-versed in handling cases per legal and organizational protocols.
3. Seek Legal Advice: Consult legal experts to ensure compliance with both the POSH Act and internal service rules.
4. Transparent Communication: Communicate the inquiry process and its implications to employees for clarity and trust.

Conclusion

While the POSH Act provides a robust mechanism for handling sexual harassment cases, the requirement for a separate departmental inquiry in factories depends on the organization’s service rules and judicial precedents. Employers must strike a balance between compliance with the POSH Act and adherence to internal disciplinary frameworks.

By aligning POSH procedures with service rules and CDA frameworks, factories and other establishments can ensure a safer, more compliant workplace while addressing cases of sexual harassment effectively.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Departmental Inquiries.

For more blogs and articles, visit our official website. Contact us for workshops and queries related to POSH, EAP (Employee Assistance Program) , Diversity and Inclusion and Code Of Conduct.

The post POSH Cases in Factories: Are Departmental Inquiries Required? appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.