Context

• A rare instance of accountability in Chandigarh, where a college professor was dismissed after an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) probe under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act/ POSH Act 2013.
• This incident has highlighted both the potential and the limitations of India’s institutional mechanisms against sexual harassment.
• While the verdict has been celebrated as justice served, it simultaneously exposes systemic challenges that prevent consistent and empathetic implementation of the law, particularly within educational spaces marked by sharp power imbalances.

The Limits of Consent and the Missing Idea of Informed Consent

• One of the fundamental gaps in the POSH framework lies in its narrow understanding of consent.
• The Act acknowledges consent but ignores informed consent, a concept especially crucial in academic and workplace hierarchies.
• A relationship that appears consensual on the surface may be shaped by emotional manipulation, authority, or information asymmetry.
• When these imbalances become visible later, earlier consent becomes void and results not only in harassment but in deep emotional betrayal.
• The current legal framework remains oriented toward visible, explicit acts, failing to recognise psychological or manipulative behaviour.
• Many well-educated perpetrators deliberately operate in grey zones, avoiding behaviours that leave clear evidence while exploiting trust and emotional vulnerability.
• The absence of recognition for emotional harassment and coercive, deceptive conduct leaves survivors without adequate legal protection.

Procedural and Linguistic Limitations: Barriers to Justice

• The Three-Month Limitation Period
  • Several procedural elements of the Act inadvertently hinder survivors. The three-month limitation period for filing complaints is particularly restrictive.
  • Survivors who experience coercion or prolonged manipulation often take far longer to recognise the violence or gather the courage to report it.
  • In universities, where students may remain under the same institutional umbrella for years, crucial evidence or realisation may emerge well beyond this timeline.
  • Justice should not come with an expiry date, yet the existing rule reinforces perpetrators’ belief that time is on their side.
• Linguistic Limitations
  • Language also shapes how seriously misconduct is perceived.
  • The Act refers to the accused as a respondent, softening the gravity of actions that would constitute criminal offences outside institutional settings.
  • Such diluted terminology normalises the violation and diminishes the psychological trauma experienced by survivors.
• The Burden of Proof
  • The burden of proof further tilts the scales against complainants. Sexual harassment usually unfolds as a pattern of behaviour rather than as a single, documentable event.
  • Yet ICCs often dismiss complaints due to lack of direct evidence, without considering corroborative testimony, anonymous feedback, or circumstantial indicators.
  • While committees are carefully structured to protect the respondent’s rights, similar institutional trust is rarely extended toward recognising a survivor’s lived experience.

Inter-Institutional Misconduct: A Silent Blind Spot

• Modern academia thrives on collaboration, conferences, visiting faculty programmes, and inter-campus research. Misconduct, therefore, often spans institutional boundaries.
• The POSH Act, however, provides no mechanism for inter-institutional complaints, leaving repeat offenders free to move across campuses without accountability.
• For survivors, filing a complaint is already an emotionally exhausting battle. What follows is frequently marked by delays, bureaucratic hesitation, and the threat of counteraction.
• The clause allowing punishment for malicious complaints, intended as a safeguard, often intimidates genuine victims, deterring them from seeking justice.

Digital Harassment and the Challenge of Evidence

• With communication increasingly shifting to digital platforms, harassment now occurs through vanishing messages, encrypted chats, or temporary images.
• Expecting ICC members, often without specialised technical training, to interpret such evidence is unrealistic.
• The Act has not adapted to the complexities of digital communication, offering no clear protocols for handling such material.
• To remain relevant, the law must integrate updated definitions of digital harassment, mandate training for ICC members, and establish procedures for managing electronic evidence so that technology does not become a shield for offenders.

The Way Forward: Toward a Stronger and More Responsive POSH Framework

• The Chandigarh case demonstrates what a committed ICC and a determined group of complainants can achieve, but such outcomes are far from the norm.
• The promise of the POSH Act can be fulfilled only through structural reforms that include recognising emotional coercion, expanding the definition of consent, extending timelines for reporting, strengthening digital evidence protocols, and improving investigative methods.

Conclusion

• Informal whisper networks among women reflect not empowerment but institutional failure.
• A decade after its enactment, the POSH Act must evolve to match the realities of modern workplaces and academic environments.
• Justice should not depend on the survivor’s endurance or the discretion of committees; it must be built into the framework of the law
• Until then, the protection offered by the POSH Act risks remaining symbolic rather than substantive.