When the Complaint Is Against a Senior Leader: Protecting the IC’s Independence

A complaint against a senior leader puts an uncomfortable question before an organisation: can its complaint process function without that person’s permission? The answer depends on practical arrangements. Who releases records? Who approves the committee’s time? Who can stop an instruction to keep a witness out of a hearing?

For HR, boards and Internal Committees, preparation should begin with jurisdiction, then move to conflicts and the employer support the process needs. The governance measures below are practitioner recommendations, not a claim that the PoSH Act prescribes a special board-led inquiry for senior executives.

First check whether the complaint belongs before the IC

Do not assume that every complaint against a senior leader belongs before the Internal Committee. Section 6 of the PoSH Act provides for the Local Committee to receive complaints against the employer himself, as well as complaints from establishments without an IC because they have fewer than ten workers.[1]

Section 2(g) defines “employer” by reference to the workplace and the relevant responsibilities. For workplaces outside its government/local-authority limb, this includes the person responsible for management, supervision and control; its explanation also addresses the person, board or committee responsible for policy formulation and administration.[1]

The practical consequence is a threshold assessment, not a shortcut based on designation. Examine actual authority, organisational documents and the applicable statutory limb. Do not automatically equate every manager with the employer, or assume that calling someone an employee settles the question. Obtain case-specific legal advice where the position is disputed and verify the relevant district’s Local Committee details.

A board-appointed investigator cannot be assumed to substitute for the statutory forum. Record the routing decision and its reasons. If the IC is the appropriate forum, the next task is to let it function without managerial control over its conclusions.

Identify the dependencies that could affect the inquiry

Before substantive work begins, ask members to disclose relevant relationships and prior involvement. A useful conflict review should consider whether a member:

• Reports to either party or depends on them for appraisal or promotion.
• Previously advised a party about the disputed events.
• Witnessed an incident or may need to give evidence.
• Has a close personal or significant financial relationship with a party.
• Has already expressed a settled view about the complaint.

These are prompts for assessment, not a statutory list of automatic disqualifications. Record the concern, the decision and the safeguards chosen. If a change in membership is needed, obtain advice on the lawful process and maintain the composition required by section 4; do not replace members informally because their questions are inconvenient.[1]

Ungender’s guide to constituting an IC discusses member selection and the external member’s distance from internal hierarchies.[2] For a live senior-leader complaint, assess the actual relationships rather than relying on the appointment letter alone.

Give the committee an unconflicted route for practical support

Section 19 requires the employer to provide necessary facilities, assist in securing attendance and make relevant requested information available to the committee.[1] Translate those duties into named responsibilities before a request becomes contentious.

As a governance arrangement, designate an authorised, unconflicted person who can resolve administrative obstacles. Depending on the organisation, this might involve a board member or another properly authorised office-holder. It is not a universal statutory requirement to appoint an independent director.

Write down who can release members from ordinary work, arrange private hearings, approve necessary expenditure and direct the appropriate custodian to preserve records. Give that person a backup. Avoid making the respondent’s approval necessary for these steps.

Keep the support role separate from the inquiry. The support contact should not approve witness lists, negotiate findings or ask for a favourable outcome. Where the contact is themselves a witness or otherwise conflicted, arrange another route.

Separate record preservation from permission to read everything

Identify relevant systems and custodians early: work email, calendars, access records or other material connected to the allegations. Ask for targeted preservation, with a record of what was requested, by whom and when. Avoid collecting unrelated personal information merely because a senior person is involved.

A systems administrator may need to preserve material without receiving the complaint narrative. A manager arranging hearing time may need a schedule without receiving witness statements. Define access by the task being performed.

Section 16 restricts making complaint and inquiry information known to the public, press and media.[1] The practical recommendation here is narrower internal circulation too: do not turn a senior-leader case into a standing leadership-group discussion. At the same time, do not use confidentiality to deny a party information or participation that the applicable procedure requires.

Record pressure without treating it as proof of harassment

Hypothetical: A business head tells an IC member that calling a particular witness will jeopardise an important client relationship. The member reports the conversation to the committee.

A useful response would record what was said, when it happened and which inquiry step it could affect. The committee should assess how to preserve its process and seek the necessary support through an unconflicted route. It should not quietly remove the witness to resolve a commercial problem.

Keep the alleged interference analytically separate from the underlying harassment allegation. It may raise a distinct concern requiring consideration, but it does not automatically prove the original complaint. Record relevant responses and avoid conclusions based on assumption.

For members and witnesses, identify a route to raise concerns about work allocation, appraisal changes or threatened consequences. Arrange a documented review by someone outside the alleged source of pressure. Describe this as an organisational safeguard, not a promise of blanket immunity from legitimate employment decisions.

Define what leadership may monitor

Agree on a limited operational update format. It can identify an outstanding resource request, an administrative delay and the person responsible for resolving it without circulating the evidence or predicting the finding.

Avoid informal requests to preview conclusions “before this reaches the board”. Legal or procedural support should have a defined role; it should not become undisclosed managerial rewriting of the committee’s assessment. Preserve authorship and a record of substantive changes.

Ungender’s PoSH compliance advisory service describes support with IC constitution and inquiry processes.[3] If engaging an adviser, specify whom they advise, what information they receive and how conflicts will be handled. An organisation’s interest in managing reputational risk must not determine the committee’s findings.

Test the arrangements before the next complaint

Run a short exercise using a fictional senior-leader complaint. Ask who determines the correct forum, who reviews conflicts and who releases records if the usual approver is the respondent. Check whether members can obtain time and support without explaining the evidence to their line managers.

Write the unresolved issues into an action list with owners. A policy promising independence is of limited use if nobody can name the person authorised to remove an obstacle. The practical test is whether the statutory process can proceed fairly, with the necessary support, even when a powerful person dislikes where it is going.

Legal-source note: This draft uses the retained India Code Act edition marked updated 31 August 2021. Fresh India Code retrieval attempts on 11 October 2026 timed out; it is not represented as a consolidated October 2026 edition. No new judgment or district notification is relied upon. Obtain case-specific advice on jurisdiction and applicable procedure.

Sources

[1] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2104/1/A2013-14.pdf — PoSH Act, India Code, edition updated 31 August 2021
[2] https://www.ungender.in/constituting-internal-committee-posh-first-time
[3] https://www.ungender.in/posh-compliance-services