“We are POSH compliant.”

Over the years, I have heard this statement from organizations across sectors and in most cases, it is not inaccurate. There is usually a policy in place, an Internal Committee has been constituted, and at least a basic level of awareness has been conducted.

From a compliance lens, the structure exists.

And yet, when a matter is tested under legal scrutiny, the outcome often does not sustain.

This is where the conversation needs to shift.

Let us go back to 2012, the Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. vs Union of India, examined by the Supreme Court of India, made a very important observation. The issue was never the absence of guidelines. Even at that stage, mechanisms had been outlined.

The concern was with implementation which at that point was inconsistent, casual, and often symbolic. Committees existed, but they were not always functional in the true sense. The intent of the law was present; the rigour of process was not.

More than a decade later, even today this gap continues to surface.

In a more recent matter before the Madras High Court in 2024, an organization had followed what would typically be considered a complete process. An Internal Committee conducted the inquiry, a report was submitted, and disciplinary action was taken.

However, the entire outcome was set aside.

Not because the complaint lacked merit, but because the process did not meet the standards of fairness expected under law. The opportunity for cross-examination was inadequate, the report was not appropriately shared, and the principles of natural justice were not sufficiently upheld.

These are not exceptional failures. They are procedural gaps — and they are far more common than most organizations would like to admit.

When such gaps surface, the consequences extend beyond the case itself. In Arvinder Bagga vs Local Complaints Committee, for instance, non-compliance and procedural deficiencies resulted in a penalty of ₹50,000, along with compensation of approximately ₹25 lakh awarded to the complainant. Outcomes like these do not merely resolve disputes; they reshape how an organization is perceived, internally by its employees and externally by its stakeholders.

At this stage, the more relevant question is no longer whether POSH exists within the organization, but whether it is operationally sound.

For instance, if a complaint were to arise tomorrow, would your Internal Committee be able to conduct a structured inquiry without external dependence? Would both parties experience the process as fair, with a genuine opportunity to present and respond? Is the Committee equipped to handle cross-questioning without leading, bias, or discomfort?

Equally important is your documentation capable of standing legal scrutiny, or does it remain descriptive rather than evidentiary? When your final report is written, does it demonstrate a clear linkage between allegation, analysis, and conclusion, or does it read as a summary of proceedings?

There is also the question of process integrity. Are timelines being followed with thought, or merely to meet compliance? Is confidentiality being balanced with fairness, or is it being applied in a way that restricts due process? And perhaps most importantly, has your system ever been tested in a simulated environment or will the first real case also be the first real test?

These are not peripheral concerns. They sit at the core of whether a POSH mechanism can withstand scrutiny.

Because a POSH inquiry is not an administrative formality. It is, in essence, a quasi-legal process. It requires discipline, neutrality, structured thinking, and the ability to arrive at reasoned findings.

In my experience, most organizations are compliant. The problem is that they are not fully prepared.

This is where the real work lies.

Not in putting POSH structures in place, but in ensuring that they function with rigour when they are actually invoked. That requires Internal Committees to be equipped with the ability to conduct inquiries, not just participate in them. It requires clarity in how questions are framed, how evidence is examined, and how conclusions are arrived at.

It also calls for stronger documentation practices not as a record-keeping exercise, but as a defensible account of the process followed. Equally, there is value in creating simulated environments where Committees can experience the complexity of a case before they are required to handle one in reality.

Because the first real case should not become the first real learning.

If there is one thought worth leaving with, it is this:

When a POSH matter reaches a court, the focus is not on whether a policy existed, or whether the intent was appropriate.

What is examined is the process; closely and critically.

And that is where the outcome is decided.

So the real question is not : Are you compliant? It is: Are you prepared?

Get in touch with Pitchers Global to know more.