Beyond the Law

**Abhay Pratap Singh & Nishtha Singh

Sexual harassment at work is not merely a workplace grievance. It is a violation of dignity, a barrier to economic participation, and a persistent form of gender-based violence. Over a decade since the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), India has witnessed both progress and profound gaps in protecting women from workplace harassment. While the Act was groundbreaking in operationalising the Vishakha Guidelines and recognising harassment as an actionable wrong, the reality on the ground reveals structural exclusions, enforcement failures, and an urgent need for reform.

The POSH Act: Progressive Intent, Incomplete Reach

The POSH Act emerged from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1997 judgment in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, which established that sexual harassment at work violates constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to livelihood. The Act expanded on these principles, mandating Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in workplaces with ten or more employees, establishing Local Committees (LCs) for the unorganised sector, and imposing penalties for non-compliance.

On paper, the law is progressive. It broadens the definition of “workplace” to include any location visited during employment, recognises women in the informal sector, including domestic workers, and covers contractual, temporary, and voluntary workers. Yet, implementation remains dismal. According to a 2017 RTI filed by the Martha Farrell Foundation, only 191 out of 655 districts in India had functional Local Committees. Even where LCs exist, accessibility remains elusive. A 2023 study on domestic worker safety found that 96 per cent of women domestic workers found it difficult to reach LCs due to distance, unclear office locations, or lack of awareness.

Who the Law Leaves Behind

1. Informal Sector Workers: Visible in Law, Invisible in Practice

India’s informal sector employs over 90 percent of its workforce, the majority being women. Domestic workers, street vendors, beedi workers, and construction labourers face heightened vulnerability due to the absence of written contracts, isolation, and economic dependence. The POSH Act explicitly includes them, but enforcement mechanisms fail catastrophically.

The Act mandates the appointment of Nodal Officers at the block, taluka, or ward level to receive complaints and forward them to LCs. This decentralisation is critical, as it is meant to bring justice closer to marginalised women. However, in Delhi, for example, Nodal Officers have been designated only at the district level, forcing domestic workers to travel 20 kilometres and lose an entire day’s wage just to file a complaint. In effect, the promise of accessible justice remains a distant, expensive dream.

Cultural stigma compounds these barriers. Women in the informal sector fear victim-blaming, loss of livelihood, and retaliation. For a domestic worker harassed in a private home, there are no witnesses, no paper trail, and no institutional support. The POSH Act’s framework assumes a level of documentation and employer accountability that simply does not exist in the informal economy.

2. Political Workers: An Inexplicable Exclusion

In September 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to extend the POSH Act to women political workers. The Court held that political parties do not qualify as “workplaces” under the Act, despite hierarchical structures, power imbalances, and documented instances of harassment. This exclusion is glaring. Women constitute only 13.6 per cent of Lok Sabha seats, and a 2016 Inter-Parliamentary Union survey found that 82 per cent of women parliamentarians globally face psychological violence, including sexist remarks and threats.

Political work often involves unsalaried volunteers, field operatives, and party functionaries who lack formal employment contracts. Yet, they face harassment in precisely the kind of hierarchical, power-laden environments the Act was designed to address. By refusing to extend protection to political spaces, the Court has denied justice to a category of women navigating one of the most hostile public arenas.

3. Remote and Digital Workspaces: The New Frontier

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift to remote and hybrid work, yet the POSH Act remains silent on digital harassment, a gap also highlighted in recent scholarship on strengthening ICs and LCs in virtual workplaces.

The National Commission for Women recommended amendments to extend POSH protections to digital harassment and remote workplaces, recognising that the nature of work has fundamentally changed. Without such amendments, millions of women in remote or gig work remain legally unprotected.

Structural Weaknesses in Enforcement

1. ICC Non-Compliance Among SMEs

The Act mandates ICCs in all workplaces with ten or more employees. However, compliance among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is abysmally low. Many lack awareness of their obligations, lack resources to set up committees, or deliberately avoid compliance to escape oversight. The penalty for non-compliance—₹50,000—is too low to deter violations and is rarely enforced.

2. Three-Month Reporting Window: An Unjust Barrier

The POSH Act permits complaints to be filed within three months of the incident, with a discretionary three-month extension. For survivors dealing with trauma, fear, and stigma, this timeline is often inadequate. A 2024 Private Members’ Bill proposed extending this period to one year, with ICCs empowered to allow indefinite extensions if justified. While this remains pending, the current timeline forces women to choose between immediate reporting and losing legal recourse altogether.

3. Elimination of Conciliation: A Double-Edged Reform

Section 10 of the Act permits conciliation before a formal inquiry. The 2024 amendment proposal seeks to eliminate this provision, citing concerns that women may be coerced into settling. While this ensures that every complaint receives a thorough investigation, it also imposes resource burdens on ICCs. It may delay justice in cases where a swift, amicable resolution was genuinely preferred.

4. Institutional Failures: The NLU Case

Even institutions entrusted with training future legal professionals have failed to establish proper POSH frameworks. The Leaflet’s 2025 investigation found that 9 out of 24 National Law Universities, including RMLNLU, did not have finalised POSH policies. This striking finding reveals that law schools, institutions that should model best practices, lag in implementing the very protections their curriculum teaches. The investigation also revealed that some NLUs had not submitted mandatory annual POSH compliance reports to the UGC since 2022, undermining institutional accountability.

This institutional failure sends a troubling message: if law schools cannot implement POSH frameworks, how can we expect other workplaces to do so? The irony is compounded when students in these institutions, many of whom will become future judges, advocates, and policymakers, lack access to safe complaint mechanisms within their own academic environments.

5. Towards Future Workplace Justice

Reforming the POSH Act requires more than legal amendments. It demands a systemic reimagining of how we conceive workplace safety, dignity, and accountability.

First, accessibility must become real. Ward-level Nodal Officers must be appointed and publicized. LCs must conduct outreach in vernacular languages and provide mobile complaint mechanisms. Digital complaint portals should enable anonymous, secure reporting.

Second, coverage must expand. Political parties must be brought within the ambit of the Act, with independent, external oversight. Remote work and digital harassment need explicit recognition, with clear guidelines for employers operating in virtual spaces.

Third, compliance must have teeth. Penalties for non-compliance should be proportionate to the company’s turnover, rather than fixed sums. Regular audits, mandatory reporting of ICC activity, and public disclosure of complaints and resolutions would create accountability.

Fourth, cultural transformation is non-negotiable. Training must go beyond tick-box compliance to challenge patriarchal norms, dismantle power hierarchies, and centre survivor experiences. ICCs must include members with expertise in trauma-informed investigation, not merely legal or HR personnel.

Fifth, intersectionality must inform enforcement. Women from Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim, and other marginalised communities face compounded vulnerabilities. Reservation of LC and ICC seats for women from these communities, along with sensitivity training, would ensure that redressal mechanisms reflect the realities of caste, class, and religious discrimination.

Conclusion

The POSH Act was a necessary and progressive legal intervention. But law alone does not create safety. Over a decade since its enactment, millions of women remain outside its protection, unable to access justice, and vulnerable to harassment without recourse. The institutional failures documented in law schools themselves prove that compliance remains superficial. The future of workplace justice depends on closing these gaps—not merely through amendments, but through a fundamental commitment to dignity, accessibility, and accountability. Until every woman, regardless of sector, employment type, or geography, can work without fear, the promise of the POSH Act remains unfulfilled.

**Abhay Pratap Singh, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), 5th Year, Dr. RMLNLU, Lucknow and Nishtha Singh, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), 1st Year, Dr. RMLNLU, Lucknow.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.