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.

Many Internal Committees (ICs) across organizations quietly bypass the External Member under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, 2013.

Sometimes, it’s to save cost.
But let’s ask the real question — at what cost to fairness and compliance?

The External Member is not a name on paper. They bring neutrality, independence, and legal credibility to every sexual harassment inquiry. Their presence ensures that the process remains transparent, fair, and free from internal bias.

When they’re missing, the inquiry doesn’t just lose balance — it loses its legal validity. Courts have made this clear in multiple PoSH case laws.

Key Judgments That Reinforce the Role of the External Member

Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. (2013), Supreme Court of India

• Reaffirmed the requirement of an external member in the Internal Committee to ensure neutrality and prevent internal bias.
• If the IC is not properly constituted, the inquiry is procedurally invalid irrespective of evidence.

Punita K. Sodhi vs Union of India & Ors. (2010), Delhi High Court

• Held that the Complaints Committee must strictly comply with the Vishaka Guidelines, including proper composition.
• Any deviation from prescribed composition or procedure vitiates the inquiry proceedings.

Why Every PoSH Committee Needs an External Member

An External Member brings:

• Impartiality: A neutral, third-party perspective.
• Credibility: Confidence that the process is fair and lawful.
• Legal validity: Ensures compliance with Section 4 of the PoSH Act.
• Trust: Both complainant and respondent believe in the system.

Without them, inquiries are non-compliant, lack credibility, and risk being overturned in court.

Beyond Compliance – It’s About Conscience

The External Member’s role is not optional. It reflects an organization’s commitment to fairness, integrity, and psychological safety.

Saving cost by skipping this role may look convenient, but it comes at the expense of trust, culture, and compliance.

Cost may be your reason. But are you being fair?

Please reach out to us for for professional External Member support and fair, compliant 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 When the External Member Is Missing – The PoSH Inquiry Loses Its Soul 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent directive (August 2025), has mandated that all States and Union Territories conduct a district-wise survey within six weeks to verify whether organizations have complied with the POSH Act, 2013—specifically, the constitution of Internal Committees (ICs) at workplaces.

Key Highlights of the Directive:

• • A district-wise survey will be conducted by Labour Commissioners and District Authorities.
  • Verification will include whether Internal Committees (ICs) are formed and functional in workplaces.
  • Non-compliance may lead to denial of license renewals/registrations for establishments.
  • Applies to all public and private organizations.

Action Points for Organization:

• Verify IC Constitution: Ensure our IC is duly constituted with external members and updated details.
• Documentation: Maintain IC meeting minutes, awareness sessions conducted, and annual reports.
• Reporting: Update details on SHe-Box portal and keep records ready for inspection. More details on the She-Box portal can be referred here https://cecureus.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-she-box-portal-update/
• Training & Awareness: Refresh POSH training for employees and IC members before survey initiation.

Let us treat this with urgency to ensure full compliance and readiness for upcoming district-level surveys. Additional details on mandatory POSH Compliance for Companies can be found here – https://cecureus.com/mandatory-posh-compliance-for-companies-from-july-14-2025/

 References:

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/22553/22553_2023_6_11_61891_Order_21-May-2025.pdf

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-directs-district-wise-survey-to-ascertain-posh-act-compliance-by-employers-300702

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/19/posh-act-compliance-supreme-court-conduct-district-wise-survey-setting-up-icc/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Need support with POSH compliance?

At Cecureus, we help organizations with:

• IC constitution & training, PoSH audit, Surveys.
• POSH awareness workshops
• Compliance surveys & reporting
• End-to-end support for legal compliance

Please reach out to us for setting up the POSH Compliance for your organization!

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 Supreme Court Directive – Mandatory District-Wise POSH Compliance Survey 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.

The strength of any Internal Committee (IC) lies not just in its legal mandate, but in its ability to act fairly, impartially, and without prejudice. In the context of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, this means that bias—whether explicit or implicit—must be actively recognized and addressed by every IC member.

But what exactly does bias look like in a PoSH inquiry?

It could be:

• Assuming the complainant is exaggerating because they’re emotional
• Giving more credibility to the respondent because of their seniority or reputation
• Treating a team member’s friend or peer with undue leniency
• Believing one gender is “naturally more vulnerable” or “more likely to lie”

Such biases, if left unchecked, can erode the trust in the inquiry process and lead to flawed outcomes. Worse, they can reinforce the very power dynamics the PoSH Act seeks to dismantle.

Why Bias Awareness is Crucial in PoSH Cases

IC members are expected to uphold two fundamental principles of natural justice:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua – No one should be a judge in their own cause.
2. Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side.

Both these principles hinge on neutrality. Even an appearance of bias can invalidate the entire process and open the organization to reputational and legal risk.

 Case Law Precedents on IC Bias

1. V. Uma vs Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society (2022, Madras HC)

The Court held that the presence of a biased IC member, who had prior issues with the complainant, vitiated the inquiry. The organization was directed to reconstitute the IC and restart the inquiry afresh.

2. Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs M/s Air France (2020, Delhi HC)

The High Court observed that procedural irregularities and the IC’s failure to follow neutrality—including not giving the complainant a fair hearing—resulted in a flawed process. It stressed that impartiality is the backbone of any IC investigation.

3. Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs Union of India (2013, SC)

This landmark case emphasized that organizations must ensure ICs are independent and unbiased, with no conflict of interest, and are capable of conducting free and fair inquiries under Vishaka Guidelines and the PoSH Act.

These cases serve as powerful reminders that bias—real or perceived—can lead to entire inquiries being overturned and judicial interventions.

Common Sources of Bias to Watch For

• Organizational Hierarchy: Being influenced by the designation or track record of the respondent
• Cultural Similarities: Aligning subconsciously with someone due to shared language, region, or background
• Gender Stereotyping: Believing men are less likely to face harassment or women are overly sensitive
• Confirmation Bias: Only seeking evidence that supports your initial impressions

Self-Awareness First: IC Members, Check Your Bias

Before handling any case, it is essential for every IC member to take a moment to self-reflect. We have created a Bias Awareness Checklist to help you do just that.

👉 Checklist Link – Click Here

Take this 3-minute reflection before your next inquiry — and revisit it during and after the process too.

What Neutrality Looks Like in Practice

• Giving equal time and attention to both parties
• Avoiding assumptions based on emotional display
• Using consistent body language and tone during interviews
• Ensuring groupthink does not influence collective decision-making
• Recusing oneself if impartiality cannot be assured

Neutrality doesn’t mean lack of empathy—it means making sure empathy doesn’t cloud objectivity.

Final Thought

In PoSH cases, bias is not just unethical—it’s unlawful. The IC’s role is one of immense responsibility. Upholding neutrality is not just about doing what’s right for the parties involved; it’s about preserving the integrity of the institution and the workplace culture.

Let’s move from unconscious bias to conscious fairness—one inquiry at a time.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Bias and Neutrality 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 Bias and Neutrality in PoSH Inquiries: A Non-Negotiable Responsibility for IC Members appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

Case Scenario

During a PoSH awareness session at a tech firm, an employee, Aarti, files a formal sexual harassment complaint against her colleague, Rajeev, a senior technical analyst. The complaint alleges that Rajeev repeatedly made sexually suggestive jokes and invaded her personal space, despite her verbal objections.

When the Internal Committee (IC) reaches out to Rajeev for his response, they observe that he is unable to focus, provides inconsistent answers, and appears highly disoriented. Over the course of the proceedings, Rajeev exhibits signs of mental instability — including memory lapses, emotional breakdowns, and confused statements. His reporting manager informs the IC that Rajeev has been undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder and had recently experienced a relapse.

The IC now faces a dilemma: how to conduct a fair, unbiased inquiry that respects due process while accommodating Rajeev’s mental health condition.

Introduction

The redressal mechanism under India’s Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act is designed to ensure a safe, inclusive, and equitable work environment. However, Internal Committees may sometimes deal with parties who are mentally unfit — either temporarily or chronically. In such cases, ICs must balance legal compliance with natural justice, and adopt a trauma-informed and inclusive approach.

Recognizing and Handling Mental Unfitness: A Practical Guide for the IC

Identifying Signs of Mental Unfitness:

ICs should remain vigilant for signs like:

• Incoherent or delusional statements
• Memory loss or inability to recall key facts
• Emotional breakdowns or outbursts
• Aggressive or self-harming behavior
• Paranoia or hypervigilance

These can manifest:

• At the time of the incident
• During the inquiry process

Legal Provision for Support:

If a complainant is mentally unfit, Rule 6(2) of the PoSH Rules permits:

• A legal heir
• A guardian
• A member of the IC

to help file the complaint.

For respondents, while not explicitly covered in PoSH, their condition can affect proceedings significantly — from not understanding the nature of their actions to being unable to defend themselves.

Seeking Medical Evaluation and Documentation:

The IC should:

• Seek a psychiatric assessment from a licensed mental health professional
• Request a fitness certificate for participation in inquiry
• Obtain informed consent
• Take expert help in framing trauma-informed questions

This ensures fair participation and defensible outcomes.

Accommodating Mentally Unfit Parties:

ICs must:

• Allow a support person or guardian (as per the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017)
• Accept written statements if verbal communication is difficult
• Record the presence of the support person, ensuring no influence on testimony

Assessing Fitness to Participate in Inquiry:

Key criteria include the ability to:

• Understand the complaint
• Follow proceedings
• Articulate a defense
• Understand and respond to evidence
• Interact with witnesses and the IC

If unfit, modify procedures:

• Use simple, clear language
• Conduct shorter sessions in safe spaces
• Allow guardian-submitted testimony
• Validate all facts with corroborative evidence
• Ensure no bias or prejudgment

Maintaining Dignity and Confidentiality:

ICs must:

• Maintain confidentiality of medical information
• Avoid stigma, labels, or assumptions
• Be empathetic yet neutral in all interactions

Proceeding with Caution:

If the party is medically unfit to participate:

• Temporarily suspend the inquiry
• Notify management confidentially
• Seek legal guidance
• Resume after fitness is restored or defer indefinitely

All actions must be properly documented.

Documentation Checklist:

Maintain:

• Medical records and certificates
• Guardian/support person records
• Procedural adjustments made
• Meeting notes and internal correspondence
• Reasoning behind all IC decisions

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 9(2), PoSH Act – Extension of 3 months to file complaint in genuine cases of incapacity
• Rule 6(2), PoSH Rules – Assistance in filing complaints for mentally/physically unfit complainants
• Rule 9, PoSH Rules – Allows recommendation of counselling
• Section 12, PoSH Act – Interim relief during pendency of inquiry
• Section 13, PoSH Act – Recommendations after inquiry
• Section 367, BNSS (2023) – Suspension of trial for unsound mind
• Section 84, BNS (2023) – Acts committed by persons of unsound mind may not attract criminal liability

Returning to Rajeev’s Case: What Should the IC Do?

• Refer Rajeev for psychiatric evaluation
• Modify proceedings (shorter, written responses, support person)
• Recommend counselling under Rule 9
• Provide interim protection to Aarti under Section 12
• If unfit, suspend proceedings and document it
• Resume after medical fitness is confirmed.

If Rajeev is Found Guilty

Under Section 13, the IC may recommend:

• Written apology
• Counselling or psychiatric help
• Withholding promotions or increments
• Transfer to another team
• Termination in severe or repeat cases
• Mandatory sensitization training

All actions should be proportionate and justified based on severity and mental health context.

Conclusion

Handling PoSH cases involving mentally unfit individuals requires:

• Legal clarity
• Medical sensitivity
• Empathy without prejudice
• Thorough documentation
• Clear communication

ICs must uphold dignity, fairness, and safety for all.

Please reach out to us for any queries on What to do when the Complainants or Respondents are Mentally Unfit.

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 How Should the IC Handle Mentally Unfit Complainants or Respondents? A POSH-Compliant Practical Guide appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.

In civil and quasi-judicial proceedings, the burden of proof is notably different from that in criminal cases. Rather than requiring proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” these cases operate on the preponderance of probability principle, where the most convincing evidence prevails, even if it does not entirely remove all doubt. This approach is particularly relevant in workplace sexual harassment cases, as it provides a fairer, more practical standard in often complex and sensitive situations.

Handling Sexual Harassment Allegations Without Direct Evidence: How Preponderance of Probability Works

Case Study: Riya’s Complaint Against Her Manager

Riya, an employee, files a complaint against her manager, Kiran, accusing him of making inappropriate remarks and fostering a hostile environment. Since the incidents occurred in private settings, there are no witnesses or physical records to corroborate Riya’s claims. Kiran denies the allegations.

Faced with limited evidence, the internal committee (IC) of the organization must rely on the preponderance of probability principle to evaluate the likelihood of each party’s account and arrive at a fair decision.

Applying Preponderance of Probability in PoSH Cases

The internal committee closely examines the behaviors, statements, and reliability of each party:

1. Consistency and Detail in Testimony: Riya provides specific dates, settings, and remarks from multiple interactions with Kiran, which remain consistent across interviews.
2. Performance and Past Conduct: Riya’s record prior to Kiran’s supervision shows no performance issues or similar complaints.
3. Kiran’s Defense: Kiran’s response is solely a denial, with no substantive evidence to counter Riya’s account. Moreover, other employees have informally expressed concerns about Kiran’s behavior, though no formal complaints were filed.

Despite the absence of direct evidence, the committee finds Riya’s account more credible than Kiran’s defense and rules in her favor under the preponderance of probability standard.

When There Is No Evidence: Making Decisions on Credibility and Circumstantial Evidence

In cases like Riya’s, where no direct evidence exists, internal committees and courts turn to circumstantial evidence and the credibility of the parties involved. Here’s how they assess:

• Reliability of Testimonies: Consistency and coherence in the complainant’s statements strengthen the case, even without physical evidence.
• Conduct and Background: The behavior and history of both parties are weighed to assess the plausibility of the claims.
• Indirect Evidence: Any informal concerns or relevant details from other employees can lend support, even if they’re not formalized complaints.

In civil cases such as workplace harassment, decisions hinge on the probability of events rather than absolute certainty. Thus, even in the absence of physical evidence, if Riya’s account is deemed credible, her claim stands a strong chance of being upheld.

Conclusion

The preponderance of probability standard is essential in PoSH compliance and civil disputes where direct evidence may be lacking. It empowers internal committees to make decisions based on which side’s account is more probable, ensuring that justice is served in sensitive cases like sexual harassment. In India, legal precedents affirm that credible testimony from the complainant alone can suffice, preventing cases from being dismissed solely due to a lack of corroboration.

This principle underscores a balance between fairness and practicality, making it possible for justice to prevail even in challenging cases where evidence is scarce, and ensuring that workplace safety and respect are upheld.

Please reach out to us for any queries on Applying the Principle of Preponderance of Probability in PoSH Cases.

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 Applying the Principle of Preponderance of Probability in PoSH Cases: Ensuring Fair and Practical Justice in Workplace Investigations appeared first on Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Inclusive Diversity, Employee Assistance Program | CecureUs | Chennai.