A plain-English guide to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — for organisations whose "workplace" is often a village, a vehicle, or a field camp.
The POSH Act, 2013 turned the Supreme Court's Vishaka guidelines (1997) — a case that itself arose from the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a grassroots social worker in Rajasthan — into binding legislation. Its origin story is a social-sector story: a woman doing development work in the field, attacked for doing it, and failed by the institutions around her.
Development organisations carry above-average exposure: dispersed field teams, power gaps between head office and field staff, residential trainings, travel with colleagues and community members, and a workforce that is often young and female. The Act's definition of "workplace" was written for exactly this reality — it follows the work, not the office.
Must provide a safe workplace, constitute the IC, display the penal consequences and IC contact details, run orientation and awareness programmes, assist with complaints, and include POSH compliance in the annual report. For NGOs, the "employer" is typically the trustee body, governing board, or executive director.
Receives complaints, attempts conciliation if asked, conducts the inquiry with principles of natural justice, can recommend interim relief (transfer, leave up to 3 months), and recommends action. Its report has the weight of an inquiry under service rules.
The outside voice from an NGO or legal background who keeps the IC honest, especially where the respondent is senior. Choose someone genuinely trained in POSH inquiries, not a convenient acquaintance — and pay their sitting fees as the Rules require.
The district machinery for small workplaces, informal-sector workers, and complaints against employers. Field-heavy NGOs partnering with community-based groups should know how to route a community complaint here.
The employer duties, converted into nine concrete steps.
The Act protects only an "aggrieved woman." Male and non-binary colleagues harassed at work have no remedy under POSH itself. Most well-run organisations adopt a gender-neutral internal policy that mirrors POSH procedure through service rules or the code of conduct — legally distinct from the Act, but enforceable as an employment matter.
A community member harassed by your staff member during programme delivery is within the Act's reach — the location is your "workplace" and she is an "aggrieved woman." The reverse (your staff harassed by a community member) fits awkwardly, since the IC has no authority over outsiders; the practical answer is safety protocols, escalation to the Local Committee or police, and employer duty-of-care.
"Employee" is defined expansively (regular, temporary, ad hoc, daily wage, with or without pay, including volunteers) for the purpose of who can complain. Whether volunteers count towards the 10-employee IC threshold is less settled — the cautious reading, and the sensible one for values reasons, is to constitute an IC anyway.
Section 14 allows action for malicious complaints, but the Act itself says inability to substantiate a complaint is not malice. ICs that brandish Section 14 chill genuine reporting; use it only where malice is affirmatively proved.
Not statutorily — complaints route to your district's Local Committee. But you still carry every other employer duty: policy, display, awareness, safe workplace. Many small NGOs voluntarily set up an IC or share an external member with peer organisations; funders often expect it regardless of headcount.
Yes. Any place visited arising out of employment — including transport provided for the journey — is workplace under Section 2(o). Training venues, field sites, and travel are squarely covered.
If the respondent is the employer, the complaint goes to the Local Committee, not the IC — an IC cannot credibly inquire into the person it reports to. Boards should have a protocol for this scenario before it happens, including interim measures the board itself can take.
Yes. The IC inquiry is a civil, employment-side process; serious incidents may also be offences under the IPC/BNS, and the employer must assist the complainant if she chooses to file a criminal complaint. One does not suspend the other.
Beyond the statutory penalty (₹50,000, doubling on repeat, and possible cancellation of licence or registration), most institutional funders and CSR teams now require POSH compliance in due diligence. A missing IC or unfiled annual report is an easy reason to drop a grantee.
ImpactMojo (2026). "The POSH Act for the Social Sector." ImpactMojo Law Guides. Retrieved from https://impactmojo.in/law-guides/posh-act-social-sector.html
If a judgment or amendment has changed something on this page, tell us and we'll fix it.
Report a correction →The judgments below are the ones that changed what this law requires in practice. Summaries are editorial orientation, not legal advice — the linked judgment is what is authoritative.
Held. Found serious gaps in POSH implementation across public and private institutions and directed verification that Internal Committees actually exist and function.
What changed. Put institutions on notice that a committee whose members and procedure cannot be evidenced is treated as no committee at all. Directly relevant to NGOs relying on a nominal ICC.
Held. Found the Vishaka guidelines widely unimplemented and issued directions to States and regulators to bring complaints mechanisms into being.
What changed. Established that non-implementation is itself actionable — a complainant can go to the High Court where an employer has simply not constituted a committee.
Now in statute. Directions were largely absorbed into the POSH Act, 2013 and its Rules. The case remains the authority on what happens when the machinery exists only on paper.
Held. Sexual harassment does not require physical contact; conduct that outrages a woman's modesty and creates a hostile environment is enough to justify dismissal.
What changed. Settled that an employer may act on non-contact conduct — advances, propositioning, sustained unwelcome attention — and that a disciplinary finding does not need the criminal standard of proof.
Held. Absent a law on workplace sexual harassment, the Court framed binding guidelines under Article 32 and declared them enforceable until Parliament legislated.
What changed. Gave every workplace a duty to constitute a complaints committee sixteen years before the POSH Act existed. Employers could no longer treat harassment as a private dispute between staff.
Now in statute. The Vishaka guidelines operated as binding law until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 replaced them. Cite the Act for obligations; cite Vishaka for the reasoning the Act rests on.
