Workplace sexual harassment and TCS scandal: When compliance exists only on paper

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) marked a significant legislative step towards ensuring that women in India are able to participate in the workforce with dignity, safety and equality. Rooted in the principles laid down by the Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, the Act goes beyond redressal to impose a proactive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

This Act was meant to empower working women and ensure that a speedy and confidential trial of any incident could be resolved within the confines of the employment workspace, keeping in mind the HR policies of the employer and the atmosphere of safety and protection in the workplace.

The framework of the POSH Act is clear. It mandates the constitution of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs), prescribes time-bound inquiries, ensures confidentiality and requires employers to undertake awareness and reporting obligations. The intent is to create a mechanism that is accessible, credible and effective - allowing complaints to be addressed within the workplace itself, without fear of retaliation.

Yet, more than a decade after its enactment, a persistent gap remains between statutory compliance and ground realities.

A report in The Times of India (March 2, 2024) notes that while women constitute nearly 48% of India’s population, their contribution to GDP stands at approximately 18%. While multiple factors contribute to this disparity, workplace safety - and the perception of it - remains a critical determinant of women’s participation in the workforce.

The case involving the TCS harassment at Nashik, which also has an element of harassment and religious conversion, is deeply troubling. This kind of atmosphere prevailing in the workplace ought to have come to the attention of the offices of the management and other human resource managers which a company like TCS ought to have in place. The checks and balances that any organisation should provide to its employees should have detected this frightening behaviour before it spiraled into a monumental loss of face and reputation for TCS as a company.

These developments call for a closer examination of how organisations interpret and implement their obligations under the POSH Act. The law does not merely require the existence of an ICC; it requires that such committees function independently, impartially and effectively. It is not enough to constitute a committee; the mechanism must inspire confidence among employees.

Where allegations point to multiple instances of abuse over a period of time, certain fundamental questions arise. Were complaints raised internally? If so, how were they handled? Did the ICC conduct inquiries in a timely and impartial manner? Were findings appropriately acted upon? Or were early warning signs ignored, minimised or suppressed?

These questions are not confined to a single organisation. They reflect a broader concern about the nature of compliance within corporate structures. Too often, compliance risks being reduced to a formal exercise - checklists completed, policies circulated and annual filings submitted -without a corresponding commitment to enforcement.

The purpose of the POSH framework is preventive as much as it is remedial. It is designed to identify and address issues at an early stage, before they escalate into systemic failures. When implementation becomes perfunctory, the law’s protective architecture is undermined.

At the same time, public discourse surrounding such cases must remain measured. Allegations of this nature are grave and demand a thorough, fair and evidence-based investigation. Sensational reporting may draw attention, but it does little to strengthen institutional accountability or legal understanding. What is required instead is a focus on process - whether the safeguards envisaged under the law were in fact operational and where they may have failed.

India’s female labour force participation, particularly among educated urban women, continues to remain between 20–30%. This statistic is not merely an economic indicator; it reflects deeper structural concerns about safety, trust and the credibility of redressal mechanisms in professional environments. Laws such as the POSH Act were enacted precisely to address these concerns, by creating a framework that enables women to engage in the workforce without fear.

However, legislation by itself cannot ensure change. Its effectiveness depends on the seriousness with which it is implemented. Employers must recognise that compliance is not limited to policy documentation or statutory filings. It requires building an organisational culture where complaints are encouraged, taken seriously and addressed without bias or delay.

The present moment, arising from deeply troubling allegations, presents an opportunity to re-evaluate how workplaces engage with their legal obligations. It is a reminder that the existence of a law, however well-drafted, is only the first step. Its true value lies in its enforcement.

For the POSH Act to fulfil its purpose, compliance must evolve from a formal requirement into a lived institutional ethic. Only then can workplaces move closer to ensuring that safety, dignity and equality are not merely promised, but consistently delivered.

Naheed Carrimjee is a Senior Partner at the Mumbai-based law firm Desai Desai Carrimjee and Mulla LLP.

Aditi Prabhu Khawte is a Partner at Desai Desai Carrimjee and Mulla LLP.