For over a decade now, India’s corporate sector has operated under the framework of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, aka the PoSH Act, mandating internal committees, time-bound inquiries and organisational accountability. While the system appears robust on paper, cases like the one emerging from the Tata Consultancy Service’s Nashik office suggest a more complicated reality.
Despite multiple FIRs being filed in the TCS case, alleging sexual harassment, coercion, emotional manipulation and religious intimidation, the company stated that none of the complainants had approached its internal committee or PoSH channels over the past several years. This gap between formal mechanisms and actual reporting raises a critical question as to why employees continue to bypass internal systems designed specifically for them.
“Most women don’t report at all. They leave their jobs. Others choose to ignore the behaviour initially because it feels easier than confronting it,” says Audrey D’Mello, director, Majlis, an NGO that provides legal aid to women. “But ignoring often emboldens the perpetrator, leading to a more hostile work environment. In many cases, women who complain are either pushed out or eventually leave. Sometimes they are formally terminated later under the guise of ‘incompetence’. There is a stigma attached to being a complainant—women are labelled difficult, problematic or worse. That fear alone prevents many from coming forward, and in workplaces, the added layer of financial dependence and professional risk makes speaking up even harder.”
The intent of PoSH is sincere, but the redressal mechanism is deeply flawed, say experts. At the heart of the issue lies a structural contradiction. PoSH places the responsibility of redressal within the organisation itself, requiring companies to constitute internal committees that function as quasi-judicial bodies. But, as legal experts point out, this creates an inherent tension. Because these committees are formed by the employer and often include members from within the same organisational hierarchy, questions around independence and impartiality persist. While the law mandates the inclusion of an external member, experts say this is not always sufficient to offset internal power dynamics.
For many employees, especially younger professionals or those in precarious roles, the decision to report harassment is rarely straightforward. Kritika Dogra, who works with a public relations company in Mumbai, cites the example of a friend who faced sexual harassment at her corporate firm. For months, she did not even confide in her close female colleagues. “She just endured it for long, avoiding approaching the immediate manager or the human resource person because she did not want the entire office to know,” said Dogra. “Eventually, she, along with a few women colleagues, confronted the man, following which he stopped misbehaving.”
Over the years, PoSH compliance has increasingly become a checklist exercise for companies—from annual trainings to committee formation to policy documentation. An employee from IT firm Accenture tells THE WEEK about PoSH training modules they need to mandatorily complete once every month. “There are presentations we need to go through, answer questions and we are given ratings on our performance,” she says. “So, in a way, the organisation makes sure everyone is aware of what sexual harassment is and what can be the consequences if something like this comes to notice.” But experts argue that compliance does not necessarily translate into commitment.
Workplaces are not neutral environments as they are shaped by hierarchies, performance pressures and professional dependencies. “Filing a complaint can mean not just confronting an individual, but risking one’s position within that system,” explains psychiatrist Ruksheda Syeda. “In workplaces, hierarchies play a huge role in silencing victims. The fear of losing professional stability, credibility or growth keeps many from coming forward. Add to that the reality that women are often not believed and are expected to prove everything; it creates a system where silence feels safer than speaking up.”
Even when complaints are filed, the experience of navigating PoSH mechanisms can be difficult. Inquiries are meant to be confidential, but in tightly networked office environments, information often circulates informally. Complainants may find themselves continuing to work alongside the accused during the inquiry period, adding to psychological distress.
A human resources manager of a leading pharma company recounts an incident that happened about a year and a half ago. “On paper, there was nothing to act on—no messages, no explicit remarks. But she kept coming back to us, saying she felt watched all the time,” she recalls. “It was the staring, the lingering presence, the way a certain colleague would make her uncomfortable without ever crossing a line you could formally document. Each time, she was informally advised to ignore it, to not escalate something that seemed intangible. Eventually, she left the organisation. It is frustrating when such things don’t count as evidence, but that doesn’t make the experience any less real or damaging.”
Legal experts also point to delays and procedural fatigue. While the law prescribes timelines, enforcement varies widely across organisations. However, as advocate Sathya Narayanan Subramanian explains, “Under Section 26 of the Act, penalties can be imposed, and can even lead to cancellation of business licence. If no internal committee is formed, representation can be made to district collector, who also wears the hat of a district magistrate and district officer under the Act. If no action is taken within 15 days, a writ petition can be filed in high court, seeking direction.”
The TCS case, still under investigation, may ultimately hinge on evidence and legal scrutiny. But it has reopened a broader conversation on whether India’s workplace harassment framework is equipped to handle the realities of modern corporate environment. Experts suggest that strengthening external oversight, ensuring greater independence of internal committees and creating safer reporting pathways are critical steps forward.