PoSH in 2025: A Recap of What Courts Expect from Companies and Internal Committees

For HR teams and Internal Committees, 2025 was less about statutory change and more about setting clear standards for PoSH compliance. Courts focused on how organisations interpret harm, exercise jurisdiction, and conduct inquiries, shifting evaluation from intent or form to fairness and consistency. Key themes were understanding harm from the complainant’s perspective, clarifying authority in multi-entity or non-traditional workplaces, and ensuring procedures protect both fairness and credibility. This wrap-up highlights the 2025 foundations that will guide PoSH processes in the year ahead.

1. Impact outweighs intent

In HCL Technologies Ltd. v. N. Parsarathy,the Madras High Court tackled a common workplace question: what shall be considered while determining sexual harassment, the intent or the impact? The respondent claimed his actions weren’t sexual and were just normal workplace behaviour. The Court disagreed.

Using the “reasonable woman” standard, it focused on how the conduct felt to the complainants, not the respondent’s intent. Unwelcome proximity, personal questions, and repeated interactions that caused discomfort were enough to establish harassment, even without CCTV or emails.

For ICs, the lesson is clear: it’s the complainant’s experience that matters. Intent doesn’t erase impact, and consistent, credible testimony carries real weight.

2. Not all harassment is sexual harassment

In X v. Abraham Mathai & Ors. , the Kerala High Court made an important distinction: every workplace wrong is not a PoSH case. The complainant alleged hostility, unfair treatment, salary denial, and termination. While these actions may be serious and unlawful, the Court held that they do not amount to sexual harassment unless they have a clear sexual element.

The High Court clarified that even a “hostile work environment” falls under PoSH only when the hostility stems from unwelcome sexual conduct. Bullying, power misuse, or managerial cruelty without sexual overtones must be addressed through service or labour law, not the PoSH framework.

For ICs, the message is practical and crucial: classify complaints carefully at the outset. Stretching PoSH to cover all forms of workplace injustice weakens the law and undermines its credibility.

3. External Member independence does not translate into personal liability

In Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & Anr. (Karnataka High Court, 2025), the Court clarified the legal exposure of External Members serving on Internal Committees. It held that an advocate acting as an External Member performs a personal, statutory role under the PoSH Act and does not engage in professional legal practice in the absence of an advocate–client relationship.

The Court made it clear that IC findings, even when challenged, cannot be reframed as professional misconduct. Collateral or retaliatory proceedings were treated as an abuse of process, with the Court emphasising that any challenge to an IC’s decision must follow the appellate route prescribed under Section 18 of the PoSH Act.

For ICs and External Members, the judgment reinforces that neutrality and strict procedural adherence are the true sources of authority. Liability arises only from statutory breaches, such as confidentiality violations or abuse of position under Section 4(5), not from participation in good-faith inquiry outcomes.

4. Timelines are mandatory, but reputational penalties are not

In the Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Court reaffirmed that limitation periods under Section 9 of the PoSH Act are strict and cannot be bypassed by framing later administrative actions as a “continuing wrong.” Complaints filed beyond the statutory and condonable period remain legally barred, even in cases involving power imbalance or delayed reporting.

At the same time, the Court corrected its own overreach by deleting the direction requiring allegations to be recorded in the respondent’s résumé, clarifying that reputational consequences cannot flow from allegations that were never examined on merits. The decision draws an important line for ICs and courts alike: while procedural timelines must be enforced to preserve fairness and legal certainty, allegations cannot be treated as findings without a full inquiry.

5. Complainant’s IC has jurisdiction even if respondent works elsewhere

In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court clarified that a complainant can approach the IC at her own workplace even if the respondent works for another organisation. Forcing her to go to the respondent’s IC would defeat the PoSH Act’s purpose of providing a safe and accessible remedy. The Court explained that Section 11(1) focuses on the respondent’s status as an employee, not on which IC must act. The complainant’s IC can conduct the inquiry and share its findings, while the respondent’s employer may take disciplinary action based on that report. This places a clear responsibility on ICs to handle cross-organisation complaints carefully and compliantly.

6. PoSH applies only where an employer–employee relationship exist

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea to extend the POSH Act to political parties, upholding the Kerala High Court’s view that party members do not have a formal employer-employee relationship. The Court clarified that the Act’s requirement to form Internal Complaints Committees applies only to organizations operating as workplaces with employees. Political parties, being voluntary associations without salaries or hierarchical employment, fall outside this scope. Expanding POSH to such entities would require legislative action, not judicial intervention.

7. Retaliation is itself a PoSH violation

In X v. Sahitya Akademi & Ors., the Court treated retaliation as an independent illegality under the PoSH Act. The case turned not only on the allegation of sexual harassment, but on how the organisation responded after the complaint was made. While the complaint was pending before the Local Committee and despite explicit directions that no adverse action be taken, the complainant’s employment was terminated.The Delhi High Court held the termination to be illegal. It made clear that any employment action taken during the pendency of a sexual harassment complaint, including dismissal, salary stoppage, or pressure to withdraw allegations, will be viewed with strict judicial scrutiny.

For ICCs and employers, the message is unequivocal. Once a complaint is filed, there is a heightened obligation to ensure that the complainant’s employment, pay, role, and dignity remain protected. Any departure from this, even if framed as a routine or procedural decision, risks being struck down as retaliation.

8.Suspension pending inquiry is preventive, not punitive.

In Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court upheld the suspension of a District Programme Officer (HOD) based on the IC’s prima facie finding of sexual harassment. It clarified that suspension serves as a preventive measure, not punishment, to safeguard the workplace, prevent the accused from influencing the inquiry or abusing authority, and build confidence among women employees. 

2025 made one thing clear. PoSH is no longer about ticking boxes or hiding behind procedures. Courts are closely examining how organisations actually respond when a complaint is raised, including who is protected, who is heard, and who is quietly sidelined. For HR teams and Internal Committees, the expectation is straightforward but demanding. Complaints must be classified thoughtfully, the law must be followed with discipline, complainants must be protected from harm and retaliation, and decision-making must reflect independence and integrity. As we move into 2026 and beyond, PoSH systems will be judged less by how cautiously they are designed and more by how fairly they operate in real life. At Ungender, our IC training programs help members understand the law, build confidence in their role, and handle complaints with fairness and clarity. When ICs are well equipped, workplaces become stronger and safer for everyone.