When the National Commission for Women examined the Tata Consultancy Services unit in Nashik in 2026, it found what it called “pervasive sexual harassment” and “zero compliance with the POSH Act” at the workplace. Nashik is the extreme case. But it points to a quieter, more common problem. Most POSH inquiries in India don’t collapse because the law is unclear. They collapse because the people running them, the Internal Committee members, were never trained to run them.
An Internal Committee under Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013 is a quasi-judicial body. Section 11(3) gives it the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for summoning witnesses, requiring documents, and examining people on oath.
That’s a serious mandate. And yet, most IC members are HR generalists, department heads, or external social-work professionals who take the seat without any grounding in how a fair inquiry is actually conducted.
Why IC Skill Gaps Are Now a Board-Level Risk
The volume of complaints reaching Internal Committees has risen sharply. An analysis by Ashoka University’s Centre for Economic Data and Analysis, in collaboration with Business Standard, tracked the NSE-300 companies and found POSH complaints grew from 161 in FY14 to 1,729 in FY25, a rise of 974% over the period. The base is still small relative to the workforce, but the direction is clear, and the disclosure regime around it has tightened considerably.
Two changes raise the stakes for every IC member:
- The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025, notified on May 30, 2025, extended POSH disclosure requirements to nearly every company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, listed or unlisted, taking the universe of affected filers to roughly 1.6 million companies.
- From July 14, 2025, companies must disclose detailed POSH data in their Board Reports, with penalties of up to ₹5 lakh for the company and its directors in cases of repeat or aggravated violations.
A poorly conducted inquiry is no longer an internal HR matter that stays buried. It becomes a disclosure, a potential appeal, and in a case like Nashik, a regulatory and criminal exposure. The skill of the people on the committee is now a governance question. If you want to check whether your own committee is functioning, TPB’s guide to the red flags that show a POSH Internal Committee isn’t working is a useful starting audit.
Skill 1: Applying the Principles of Natural Justice
This is the single skill on which every inquiry succeeds or fails. Rule 7(4) of the POSH Rules, 2013 requires the Committee to conduct its inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Courts have repeatedly set aside IC decisions purely on this ground.
In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023 INSC 527), the Supreme Court quashed an IC inquiry that had been conducted ex parte and in undue haste, holding it a breach of natural justice. Earlier, in Prof. Bidyut Chakraborty v. Delhi University (WP 8226/2007), the Delhi High Court set aside an inquiry committee’s decision on the same ground.
For an IC member, natural justice translates into two operating rules:
| Principle | What It Means in Practice |
| Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard) | Both the complainant and the respondent get an equal, genuine opportunity to present their case, submit evidence, and respond to the other side’s statements. The respondent must receive a copy of the complaint and be allowed to rebut it. |
| Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (no one judges their own cause) | Every member stays impartial. A member with any stake in the outcome, personal, reporting-line, or otherwise, must recuse. |
The most common failure here is denying the respondent a real chance to challenge the evidence against them. As the Delhi courts have noted, prejudicial statements cannot be used against a person without giving them the opportunity to correct or contradict them.
Skill 2: Conducting a Fair Hearing and Handling Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is where inquiries get technically difficult, and where good judgment matters most. The respondent has a right to test the evidence. At the same time, the Act is built to protect a complainant who may struggle to depose about traumatic events.
Indian courts have carved out a balanced position. Verbal, face-to-face cross-examination isn’t the only permissible method of contradiction. Where a Committee believes a witness or complainant can depose freely without fear, direct cross-examination may be allowed.
Where that isn’t the case, the IC can permit written questions routed through the Committee, so the respondent’s right to challenge evidence is preserved without exposing the complainant to intimidation.
A skilled IC member knows how to:
- Give at least 7 days’ written notice of a hearing, with date, time, and place, to the respondent, complainant, and witnesses.
- Maintain the quorum for every hearing, with the Presiding Officer, the member representing employees, and the external member present.
- Route questions through the Committee rather than allowing direct confrontation where the complainant’s ability to depose is at risk.
- Refuse to let either party bring a legal practitioner to represent them, which the Act does not permit at any stage of the proceedings.
Skill 3: Weighing Evidence on the Balance of Probabilities
An IC inquiry is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof is the civil “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt.” An IC member has to understand what that means before assessing a single statement.
On this standard, the Committee asks whether the complainant’s version is more likely than not to be true, given all the material before it. Direct evidence is rare in harassment cases, so the IC must know how to weigh circumstantial evidence, corroborating conduct, digital records, and the consistency of testimony.
The definition of workplace matters here too. It’s interpreted expansively and now covers remote work, video calls, work WhatsApp groups, and after-hours digital communication tied to employment. Messages, emails, and social posts can all constitute evidence if they meet the unwelcomeness threshold. An IC member who dismisses a screenshot because “it happened on WhatsApp, not in the office” has misunderstood the law.
Skill 4: Absolute Discipline on Confidentiality
Section 16 of the POSH Act prohibits disclosure of the identity and addresses of the complainant, respondent, and witnesses, and of any information about the conciliation or inquiry proceedings, to the press, media, or public. Breaching confidentiality carries its own penalty for the person responsible.
For an IC member, confidentiality isn’t a policy line. It’s a legal duty that governs how documents are stored, how meetings are minuted, and how members discuss a live matter. The discipline looks like this in day-to-day practice:
- Case files, minutes, and evidence are stored securely and shared only with people who are party to the inquiry.
- Members do not discuss the matter with colleagues, managers, or anyone outside the Committee.
- Written findings are shared with the parties as the Act requires, not circulated informally.
- Names and identifying details never appear in casual internal communication.
Skill 5: Meticulous Documentation and Record-Keeping
The record is what an appellate authority reads. If the inquiry was fair but the file doesn’t show it, the inquiry is treated as unfair. Non-furnishing of the ICC’s findings to the parties, for instance, has itself been held to vitiate the process.
A well-documented inquiry records the minutes of each hearing, signed by IC members, with copies given to each party. It logs every change in timeline and the reason for it. It ensures both parties hold the same set of documents. And it captures the reasoning behind the final finding, not just the conclusion.
The 90-day clock makes this discipline non-negotiable. Section 11(4) requires the inquiry to be completed within 90 days of the complaint, and the language is mandatory. A Committee that lets a matter drift risks both a statutory breach and an appeal. TPB’s overview of POSH audits and best practices sets out how to keep these records audit-ready across multiple locations.
Skill 6: Writing a Reasoned Inquiry Report and Recommendations
The final skill is drafting. After weighing the evidence, the IC must produce a report that states a clear finding, whether the complaint is upheld, not upheld, or inconclusive, and the reasoning that supports it.
From that finding flow the recommendations. Where a complaint is upheld, the IC can recommend action against the respondent in line with the organisation’s service rules. Where it isn’t, the IC recommends no action. The Committee also handles requests for interim relief under Section 12, which can include recommending a transfer of the complainant or respondent, or up to three months’ leave for the complainant, on a written request.
Both parties are entitled to a copy of the findings so they can make a representation against the report before the IC. A report that skips the reasoning, or that isn’t shared with the parties, hands the losing side an easy ground for appeal.
What Good IC Training Actually Covers
Membership isn’t the qualification. Training is. The skills above don’t come from reading the bare Act. They come from structured training that many organisations still treat as a one-time formality rather than a recurring investment. A serious IC training programme should cover:
| Skill Area | Core Competency |
| Legal framework | Sections 4, 9, 11, 12, and 16 of the POSH Act, and Rule 7 of the Rules |
| Natural justice | Right to be heard, impartiality, and the case law on both |
| Inquiry conduct | Notices, quorum, hearings, and cross-examination methods |
| Evidence | Balance of probabilities, digital evidence, and the expansive workplace definition |
| Confidentiality | Section 16 duties and secure record-keeping |
| Report writing | Reasoned findings, recommendations, and interim relief |
Composition matters as much as competence. The external member, in particular, is the appointment most employers under-invest in, and the one that most affects whether complainants trust the process at all.
TPB’s detailed breakdown of Internal Committee composition and the role of the external member is worth reading alongside any training plan. For workplaces where no IC applies, the parallel Local Committee framework carries its own set of skill demands.
In the End…
The POSH Act gives the Internal Committee civil-court powers, a 90-day deadline, and the responsibility to decide matters that affect careers, reputations, and safety. That’s a demanding brief for a group of people who are usually doing this on top of their day jobs.
The six skills that separate a sound inquiry from one that gets overturned are learnable. They are applying natural justice, running a fair hearing, weighing evidence correctly, protecting confidentiality, documenting everything, and writing a reasoned report. None of them is intuitive, and none of them survives on good intentions alone.
If your organisation hasn’t run IC training in the last year, or if the members on your committee couldn’t explain the balance of probabilities standard on the spot, that’s the gap to close before the next complaint arrives, not after. You can start by checking your committee against TPB’s POSH Internal Committee red flags and reviewing why so many valid complaints still go unreported in India.
FAQs
What powers does an Internal Committee have under the POSH Act?
Under Section 11(3) of the POSH Act, 2013, the IC has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to summon witnesses, require documents, and examine people on oath. It is a quasi-judicial body constituted under Section 4.
What standard of proof does a POSH inquiry use?
A POSH inquiry uses the civil balance of probabilities standard, not the criminal beyond reasonable doubt standard. The IC asks whether the complainant’s version is more likely than not to be true, weighing circumstantial evidence, digital records, and the consistency of testimony.
Can the respondent cross-examine the complainant?
Direct verbal cross-examination is not the only permitted method. Where a complainant can depose freely, the IC may allow it. Where intimidation is a risk, the IC can route written questions through the Committee. Neither party may bring a legal practitioner.
How long does an Internal Committee have to complete a POSH inquiry?
Section 11(4) requires the inquiry to be completed within 90 days of the complaint, and the language is mandatory. A Committee that lets a matter drift risks both a statutory breach and grounds for appeal.
What must a POSH inquiry report contain?
The report must state a clear finding, upheld, not upheld, or inconclusive, with the reasoning behind it and the recommendations that follow. Both parties get a copy so they can make a representation. A report that skips the reasoning hands the losing side a ground for appeal.
