Context:
A recent case in Chandigarh, where a college professor was dismissed following an inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act, 2013, has brought renewed attention to the structural, conceptual, and procedural weaknesses of the law. The episode highlights the need to revisit and strengthen the Act in 2025 to ensure effective justice delivery, especially within educational institutions.
Key Highlights:
Case Facts / Institutional Mechanism:
-
A student complaint filed on September 12, 2024 led to an ICC probe and dismissal of the accused professor.
-
Despite such actions, the overall conviction rate under the POSH Act remains low, raising concerns about its deterrent effect.
Conceptual & Legal Gaps:
-
Limited understanding of “informed consent”, especially in cases involving power imbalance, authority, and emotional manipulation.
-
The Act fails to recognise that initial consent can become invalid when trust is exploited.
-
Use of diluted terminology like “respondent” for the accused reduces the perceived seriousness of the offence.
Procedural & Structural Issues:
-
Three-month limitation period for filing complaints is often inadequate, as survivors may take longer to process trauma and report abuse.
-
Vague definitions shift the burden of proof onto women, within hesitant and often ill-trained institutional frameworks.
-
Inter-institutional misconduct is not clearly addressed, allowing repeat offenders to escape accountability across campuses.
-
Provision for action against “malicious complaints” risks intimidating genuine victims and causing re-traumatisation.
Digital & Contemporary Challenges:
-
The Act does not sufficiently address digital harassment, online evidence, or evolving modes of exploitation.
-
Lack of standard protocols for handling digital evidence and mandatory training for ICC members.
Relevant Prelims Points:
-
POSH Act, 2013: Enacted following the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces.
-
Internal Complaints Committee (ICC): Statutory body mandated in organisations with 10 or more employees.
-
Informed Consent: Consent given with full awareness, free from coercion, manipulation, or power imbalance.
-
Limitation Period: Currently 3 months, extendable by another 3 months for valid reasons.
Benefits, Challenges & Impact:
-
Benefits: Legal recognition of workplace harassment, institutional redressal mechanism.
-
Challenges: Low conviction rates, fear of retaliation, procedural ambiguity.
-
Impact: Rise of informal “whisper networks”, indicating erosion of trust in formal systems.
Relevant Mains Points:
-
Constitutional Basis:
-
Article 14: Equality before law
-
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination
-
Article 21: Right to dignity and safe working conditions
-
-
Ethical Dimension: Abuse of authority, betrayal of trust, institutional responsibility.
-
Governance Issue: Weak implementation undermines gender justice and workplace safety.
Way Forward:
-
Redefine informed consent to include power asymmetry and emotional coercion.
-
Extend or remove rigid limitation periods for complaint filing.
-
Introduce inter-institutional complaint tracking mechanisms.
-
Strengthen safeguards against misuse of the “malicious complaint” clause.
-
Update the Act to reflect digital realities, with clear evidence-handling protocols and compulsory ICC training.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS 2: Polity & Social Justice – laws for women, institutional accountability
-
GS 4: Ethics – consent, abuse of power, justice to survivors