POSH Compliance in 2025: Building an Internal Committee That Actually Works

The Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013 has been law for over a decade, and most companies with more than ten employees know, at least on paper, that they need an Internal Committee (IC). What far fewer get right is the composition and operating detail that determines whether that committee is a genuine mechanism or a document sitting unused in an onboarding folder.

The Composition Requirement Most Companies Miss

Section 4 of the POSH Act requires every Internal Committee to include at least one external member — someone from an NGO working on women's issues, or with relevant legal knowledge — not simply a trusted senior employee brought in to round out the panel. This single requirement is the most commonly overlooked part of an otherwise well-intentioned POSH setup, and its absence can undermine the legal validity of an IC's findings if challenged.

Beyond the external member, the committee needs a presiding officer who is a senior woman employee, and at least two other members from among employees "committed to the cause of women" or with relevant experience in social work or legal knowledge. Getting the composition right at setup avoids having to reconstitute the committee mid-inquiry — which delays every case already in progress.

Operating Details That Determine Whether It Actually Works

Quorum for hearings

Define, in the committee's own rules, how many members constitute quorum for a hearing — and make sure the external member's participation is genuinely built into that quorum, not treated as optional.

The 90-day statutory timeline

Once a complaint is filed, the Act requires the inquiry to be completed within 90 days. This is not a soft target — delays beyond this window expose the company to scrutiny during any subsequent appeal or regulatory inquiry, and undermine the credibility of the process to everyone watching it, including the complainant and respondent.

Confidentiality that's actually enforced

Section 16 of the Act mandates confidentiality around the identity of parties and the details of the complaint. This needs to be operationalised, not just written into policy — committee members need clear guidance on what they can and cannot discuss, with whom, and consequences if confidentiality is breached.

The Consequences of Getting This Wrong

Section 26 of the Act provides for financial penalties on employers who fail to constitute an IC, fail to act on its recommendations, or otherwise fail to comply with the Act's requirements — and repeated non-compliance can result in cancellation of business licenses in some circumstances. Beyond the direct penalty, a POSH process that collapses under scrutiny during a dispute becomes a reputational and legal liability that outlasts the original complaint.

A policy document alone doesn't satisfy the spirit of the requirement if no one trusts the process enough to use it.

A Working Setup, Not Just a Compliant One

The goal isn't simply to survive an audit — it's to have a mechanism employees actually trust enough to use when something happens. That means training the committee (not just appointing it), communicating the process clearly during onboarding and periodically afterward, and treating the 90-day timeline as an operational deadline your HR calendar tracks, not a legal technicality you hope never gets tested.