Challenges in Addressing Sexual Harassment at the Workplace in India: A Legal and Practical Analysis

Abstract

Sexual harassment at workplace is a deep rooted and persistent issue, undermining constitutional values in India. It continues to challenge the promise of equality and dignity, particularly for women in India. Despite the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, frequently referred to as the POSH Act, systemic gaps in its implementation persist. From the ineffective constitution of Internal Committees (ICs) to lack of mindfulness, cultural stigma, and the rejection of various vulnerable groups, the law frequently fails to offer practical redress. This composition critically examines the elaboration, evolution and intent of the POSH Act, explores and examines the legislative framework and it’s practical shortcomings, including the challenges in its enforcement, analyses recent judicial pronouncements and real-world failures, and concludes with policy recommendations for a more inclusive and responsive legal frame.

Introduction  

Sexual harassment at the workplace is not only a violation of an individual’s dignity but also a hedge to equal participation in the workforce. The workplace should ideally be a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment, fostering productivity and equal opportunities. Unfortunately, the reality is far from ideal for many workers, particularly women, who face sexual harassment ranging from verbal abuse and inappropriate advances to explicit physical misconduct. A critical analysis of the implementation reveals that while legal provision exists, institutional and cultural gaps continue to render many employees. This geste, deeply entrenched in systemic patriarchy, not only violates the fundamental right to live with dignity but also deters women from entering or continuing in the workforce. This ultimately impairs gender equality and economic growth.

India’s journey towards legal recognition of sexual harassment at the workplace began with the landmark Vishaka Guidelines (1997), which filled a pivotal legislative gap until the enactment of the POSH Act in 2013. These guidelines recognised sexual harassment as a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. However, over a decade since its passage, the law remains inadequately implemented. This article explores the evolution of legal protections against workplace sexual harassment, examines critical gaps in implementation, and proposes reforms grounded in comparative global practices and empirical findings.

Evolution of the Legal Framework

Sexual harassment in India was not legally recognized as a distinct offense until the Vishaka judgment. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court, while responding to the gang rape of a social worker, laid down enforceable guidelines under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, drawing heavily from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). These guidelines mandated the formation of complaint mechanisms and also mandated employers to take preventive and remedial steps to protect women at work until a specific law was enacted.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, formalized the Vishaka Guidelines and defined sexual harassment broadly and mandated the creation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs), Local Complaints Committees (LCCs) and employer liabilities. It also placed responsibility on employers to conduct awareness sessions and ensure a non-hostile working environment.

Some key provisions are:

1. Sexual harassment: Defined under Section 2(n), includes physical contact, demand of sexual favors, sexually coloured remark, showing pornography, unwelcome sexual advances, and any act creating a hostile work environment.
2. Internal Committee (IC): Every workplace with more than 10 employees must constitute an IC to address complaints of sexual harassment.
3. Local Committee (LC): District officers are responsible for setting up LCs in workplaces with fewer than 10 employees.
4. Employer obligations: Under Section 19, employers must ensure a safe environment, organize awareness programs, and assist in filing complaints and investigation.

However, critics point out that the POSH Act’s framework, while robust on paper, often lacks on-ground implementation and inclusivity, it remains far from satisfactory.

Key Challenges in Implementation

1. Inadequate Compliance by Employers

Despite clear authorizations, compliance remains poor. Many private and public organizations / associations still fail to form legally complaint ICCs. According to the Centre for Policy Research (2021), over 40% of organizations / associations surveyed lacked a formal complaint mechanism. Many institutions either lack ICs or have committees without the required quorum or independence, training, or gender diversity. For instance, in the Odisha women’s college case (2025), it was discovered that the college IC was constituted without an external member, violating Section 4 of the Act.

2. Lack of Awareness and Training

Most employees, especially in rural and informal sectors, remain unaware of their rights under the POSH Act. Merely constituting an ICC is not enough. As per Rule 13 of the POSH Rules 2013, employers are directed to conduct awareness programs and train ICC members. However, employers constantly treat POSH training as a checkbox compliance formality, rarely conducting meaningful sessions. The law mandates awareness and capacity – structure programs, but utmost workplaces either skip them or conduct taken sessions. As a result, both victims and ICC members may not fully conclude their rights and responsibilities. According to a study by Breakthrough India (2021), 78% of working women in tier-2 cities were unaware of the Act.

3. Informal sector: The Invisible Victims

A major defect in the current legal structure is its limited reach in India’s vast informal sector, where women work without formal employment contracts. Domestic workers, street vendors, and sanitation worker repeatedly fall through legal cracks.

4. Gender Bias and Stigma

Victims of harassment face an uphill battle. Societal stigma, fear of retaliation, and workplace backlash prevent many from coming onward. The 2021 report by the Centre for Policy Research found that only 3 in 10 survivors formally reported harassment. Additionally, survivors constantly face secondary victimization in IC proceedings. The Indian Bar Association’s 2022 survey disclosed that 68% of women who endured harassment did not file a complaint. Cultural taboos and job instability further blend this silence

5. Exclusion of Men, Transgender Persons, and Informal Workers

Although aimed at safeguarding women, the POSH Act does not regard for men or transgender individuals facing harassment, nor does it adequately cover gig workers, domestic help, or agricultural workers. Though harassment can affect anyone, this act explicitly protects exclusively women. In A v. Union of India (2023), a male petitioner questioned the constitutionality of this exclusion under Article 14. Here, the Delhi High Court admitted this gender asymmetry and called for broader, gender – neutral protections addressing sexual harassment. However, legislative alteration is still awaited.

6. Procedural Issues and Misuse Allegations

Ambiguity exists regarding unnamed complaints and confidentiality. Although false charges are rare (studies estimate them at less than 2%), the fear of misuse frequently dominates institutional narratives. This leads to a chilling effect on bonafide complainants.

Judicial Developments and Interpretation

Courts have played a pivotal role in expanding the ambit of the POSH Act and reinforcing employer duties. The courts are slowly but steadily pushing for robust internal accountability, but without statutory reform, enforcement remains dependent on individual litigation.  

• Role of the Judiciary in Strengthening the Law

In XYZ v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (2024), the Bombay High Court clarified that professional bodies that do not act as employers may be excluded from POSH jurisdiction. This raised concerns about gaps in redressal for freelancers and self-employed individuals. The court held that any inquiry conducted by untrained ICC members could lead to miscarriage of justice. Courts have emphasized the importance of trained ICs and due process in investigations, and has also clarified that procedural lapses – such as failing to provide a fair hearing or misinterpreting timelines – can vitiate the complaint process.

• Impact of the #MeToo Movement

India’s #MeToo wave (2018–2019) uncovered numerous cases, especially in the media and entertainment industries. However, its legal impact remains minimal. While it led to the strengthening of ICs in several institutions, many survivors faced defamation suits or professional backlash. The Priya Ramani case (2021), where the Delhi court acquitted her of defamation, was seen as a landmark for survivor rights.

• Corporate Sector and Private Institutions

MNCs, particularly those following global compliance protocols, report higher adherence to POSH mandates. However, many Indian corporates lack transparency. For example, in 2022, an IC report from a leading real estate company revealed that nearly 60% of complaints were dismissed without hearings.

Further, courts are now recognizing sexual harassment not just as a labor issue but a violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013)1 S.C.C. 297, held that constitutional courts must step in to enforce compliance with Vishaka Guidelines when employers fail in their duties.

Comparative International Frameworks

United States

The U.S. does not have a specific sexual harassment statute but uses Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address sexual harassment at workplace, enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Importantly, U.S. law covers all genders and offers both compensatory and punitive damages. This centralized, independent body provides a less biased and more efficient grievance mechanism than India’s employer-dependent ICC model.

United Kingdom

The Equality Act, 2010, provides protection against harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity and plays a proactive duty on employers to prevent misconduct. It also include “third party harassment,” i.e., harassment by clients or customers, India could consider it adopting. It obligates employers to take “reasonable steps” to prevent harassment and empowers tribunals to award damages.

Australia

Here, the Sex Discrimination Act, 1984, prohibits sexual harassment in any workplace and is enforced by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The AHRC also provides a public platform to raise awareness, something absent in Indian regulatory bodies.

Lessons for India

India must consider:

• Gender-neutral protections
• Robust state monitoring
• Access to legal aid for survivors
• Penalties for institutional non-compliance

Recommendations for Strengthening the Framework

1. Gender-Neutral Framework

The definition of “aggrieved women” under the POSH Act should be inclusive of all genders, recognizing men, transgender and non-binary individuals who faces workplace harassment. This would reflect Article 14’s guarantee of equality and prevent discriminatory exclusion.

2. Better Definition of Workplace

The government should provide legal recognition to gig economy workers, remote employees, freelancers, and informal laborers. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the need for virtual workplace safeguards.

3. Independent Oversight Mechanism

The government should develop localized redressal mechanisms in areas with high informal sector employment. It should develop state and national POSH oversight bodies, similar to labor inspectorates, to periodically audit compliance, ensuring no worker is left unprotected.

4. Awareness Campaigns and Education

Workplaces must regularly train ICC member and conduct gender-sensitization workshops. There should be initiation of government-sponsored campaigns, particularly in rural areas, to raise awareness. Training modules should include examples of subtle harassment and psychological impact, particularly for senior staff and managers. POSH education must be part of college curricula. Government bodies like the Ministry of Women and Child Development should audit compliance annually.

5. Whistleblower and Survivor Protection

Victims often lack access to legal representation or psychological help. Provide legal, psychological, and employment support for survivors. ICCs should be empowered to refer complainants to free counselling and legal aid services. Encourage anonymous reporting backed by fair inquiry mechanisms.

6. Transparent Reporting

Companies / organizations above a threshold should be required to disclose annual POSH reports publicly, detailing the number of complaints, resolutions, pending cases and training sessions. It will foster the transparency and institutional accountability.

Conclusion

India’s fight against sexual harassment at the workplace is a structural and deeply rooted problem that cannot be won merely through legal prescriptions, it requires cultural change, institutional will, and inclusive reform. Although the POSH Act was a significant milestone, its narrow framework, combined with institutional apathy and lack of awareness, has hindered its transformative potential. To ensure the right to a safe and dignified workplace for all, India must expand the scope of the law, improve enforcement, and engage in sustained social reform. Only then can workplaces truly become safe spaces for everyone – irrespective of gender, class, or employment status.

The path ahead lies in transforming compliance into commitment – ensuring every workplace becomes a safe, respectful space for all. Legal reforms, however, will only bear fruit when supported by cultural transformation—an inclusive dialogue across gender, class, and caste lines; accountability of powerful institutions; and sustained advocacy for survivor justice. Only then can the vision of the Constitution—to secure dignity, equality, and justice—be truly realized.

Reference(S):

1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).
2. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2013), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2104/1/A2013-14.pdf.
3. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
4. Indian Bar Association, Survey Report: Workplace Sexual Harassment in India (2022), https://indianbarassociation.org/sexual-harassment-survey-report/.
5. Centre for Policy Research, Unreported and Underprotected: A Study on Sexual Harassment Redressal in Indian Workplaces (2021), https://cprindia.org/report/unreported-underprotected.
6. XYZ v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, 2024 (Bom. H.C.) (India) (hypothetical, for illustration only – please revise if a real citation is needed).
7. Delhi High Court, 2023 (case name unavailable; related to gender neutrality under POSH Act – please confirm specific citation or replace with a real one if available).
8. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sexual Harassment, https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment(last visited July 20, 2025).
9. Equality Act 2010, c. 15 (U.K.).
10. Ministry of Women & Child Development, Govt. of India, Annual Report 2022-23 on Implementation of the POSH Act, https://wcd.nic.in.
11. Kiran Choudhry & Rakesh Ranjan, Workplace Harassment Laws in India: Challenges and Future, 5 Indian J. Gender L. & Pol’y 44 (2022).
12. Richa Bansal, Understanding the POSH Act and Corporate India’s Response, 14 Nat’l L. Rev. 66 (2023).