“If the complainant and respondent belong to two different organisations, which Internal Committee should conduct the inquiry?”

This question became especially important after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, where the Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The judgment is highly relevant for organisations that work with vendors, contractors, consultants, clients, group companies, government departments, third-party employees, and employees working across shared workplace environments.

Background of the Case

In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Internal Complaints Committee constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman could inquire into a complaint of sexual harassment against a respondent who was employed in a different department or workplace.

The respondent argued that the complaint should be handled by the IC/ICC of his own workplace. The Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation.

The Court held that the Internal Committee at the aggrieved woman’s workplace is competent to receive and inquire into the complaint, even if the respondent is employed elsewhere. The Court clarified that the PoSH Act is a protective and remedial legislation, and its interpretation must prioritise the aggrieved woman’s access to a safe, familiar and accessible redressal mechanism.

Key Legal Principle from the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(m) of the PoSH Act. The Act defines respondent as “a person against whom the aggrieved woman has made a complaint under Section 9.”

The Court observed that the use of the expression “a person” is significant. It does not restrict the respondent to being an employee, co-worker, colleague, or someone working in the same organisation as the aggrieved woman. Once a complaint is made before a validly constituted IC, the person complained against becomes the respondent for the purposes of the PoSH Act.

Why This Judgment Matters

Before this judgment, many organisations were unsure whether an IC could inquire into a complaint when the respondent belonged to another employer.

This judgment clarifies that the PoSH Act is complainant-centric, not employer-centric.

The Court recognised that asking an aggrieved woman to approach the respondent’s workplace IC may create procedural, logistical and psychological barriers. It may also force her to pursue justice in an unfamiliar workplace where she has no institutional comfort or support. The Supreme Court therefore held that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the PoSH Act.

Practical Impact for Employers

This judgment has practical implications for all organisations.

If a woman employee files a PoSH complaint against a person working in another organisation, vendor company, client company, group company, contractor organisation or different department, her own workplace IC can take up the complaint.

However, the respondent’s employer must cooperate with the inquiry by facilitating participation, sharing relevant records, supporting witness availability and acting on the final findings or recommendations as per applicable service rules.

Can the Respondent’s Organisation Refuse to Cooperate?

No. The respondent’s organisation should not refuse cooperation merely because its IC is not conducting the inquiry.

The respondent’s employer may be required to provide:

• Respondent’s employment details
• Official contact details
• Reporting manager details
• Work location details
• Relevant documents
• Attendance or duty records
• CCTV or access logs, where relevant
• Witness coordination
• Support for implementing recommendations

The respondent’s employer should act as a facilitator and cooperating employer, not as a parallel inquiry authority.

What If the Complainant Willingly Files the Complaint in the Respondent’s Organisation?

This is a practical question many ICs are now asking.

The judgment does not say that a complainant is prohibited from approaching the respondent’s organisation. However, the important point is that she cannot be compelled to do so.

If the complainant voluntarily files the complaint before the respondent’s organisation IC, the respondent organisation should carefully document that the complaint was filed willingly and without pressure.

Before proceeding, the IC should check:

The safer approach is to allow the aggrieved woman to access the IC of her own workplace. If she still chooses another forum voluntarily, the reasons and consent should be clearly recorded.

Can There Be a Joint Inquiry by IC Members from Both Workplaces?

This is another frequently asked question after the judgment.

There is no clear provision in the PoSH Act that allows two separate employers’ ICs to merge and form one joint inquiry committee for a specific complaint.

At the same time, there appears to be no direct reported case law that says a joint inquiry committee is illegal per se.

However, a joint inquiry may create legal and procedural risks, including:

• Confusion over which IC has jurisdiction
• Questions about whether the IC composition is valid under Section 4
• Risk of confidentiality breach
• Risk of the respondent later challenging the inquiry
• Blurring of responsibility for findings and recommendations
• Uncertainty over who signs the final report
• Confusion over who implements disciplinary action

The safer position after Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India is:

The IC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace should conduct and own the inquiry. The respondent’s employer should extend full cooperation and may nominate a SPOC, HR representative or IC member only for coordination support, not as a member of the inquiry panel.

Can the Respondent Organisation’s IC Members Attend the Inquiry?

They may support the process, but they should not ordinarily participate as inquiry panel members.

They can assist with:

• Coordinating the respondent’s availability
• Facilitating witness availability
• Preserving and sharing records
• Coordinating CCTV or access log review
• Providing employment details
• Supporting communication between organisations
• Implementing final recommendations

They should avoid:

• Questioning the complainant
• Cross-examining witnesses
• Sitting in IC deliberations
• Influencing the findings
• Signing the complainant IC’s inquiry report
• Conducting a parallel inquiry into the same complaint

A good way to describe their role is:

“Coordination support without interfering with the independent functioning of the complainant workplace IC.”

How Will the Respondent Organisation Know What Evidence to Share?

The respondent organisation does not need to be part of the inquiry panel to support evidence collection.

It can ask the complainant’s IC for limited particulars such as:

• Date of the alleged incident
• Approximate time
• Location
• Broad substance of the allegation
• Specific records required
• Relevant CCTV location or time window
• Witnesses whose availability is required
• Any documents needed from the respondent’s employer

This is not interference. It is necessary for meaningful cooperation.

The respondent’s organisation should preserve relevant material immediately and share evidence only on written request, on a need-to-know basis, while maintaining confidentiality.

Who Takes Action Against the Respondent?

This is an important distinction.

The complainant workplace IC may conduct the fact-finding inquiry and give findings/recommendations. However, if the respondent is employed elsewhere, the respondent’s employer will generally implement disciplinary action based on the findings, in accordance with applicable service rules or employment policies.

The Supreme Court recognised this distinction between the power to inquire and the power to impose disciplinary consequences.

FAQs on Cross-Workplace PoSH Complaints

1. Can the complainant’s workplace IC inquire into a respondent from another organisation?

Yes. The Supreme Court has clarified that the IC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace can inquire into the complaint even if the respondent is employed elsewhere.

2. Does the respondent have to be an employee of the same organisation?

No. Section 2(m) of the PoSH Act defines respondent as “a person” against whom the aggrieved woman has made a complaint. The definition is not limited to an employee of the same organisation.

3. Can the respondent’s organisation IC insist on conducting the inquiry?

Not merely because the respondent is its employee. After this judgment, the complainant’s workplace IC has jurisdiction when the aggrieved woman files the complaint there.

4. Can the complainant file the complaint with the respondent’s organisation voluntarily?

Yes, she may do so voluntarily. But she cannot be forced to approach the respondent’s workplace IC. If she voluntarily chooses that route, the respondent organisation should document her consent and ensure that the process remains safe, neutral and accessible.

5. Can two ICs conduct a joint inquiry?

A joint inquiry is not expressly prohibited, but it is not the safest model. The PoSH Act does not clearly provide for a merged IC across two employers. The better approach is that the complainant’s workplace IC conducts the inquiry, while the respondent’s employer provides cooperation and coordination support.

6. Can respondent-side IC members participate in the inquiry?

They may support coordination, but they should not ordinarily participate as inquiry panel members. Their role should be limited to facilitating respondent participation, witness availability, evidence preservation and implementation of recommendations.

7. Can the respondent’s employer ask for the complaint copy?

The respondent should receive the complaint or substance of allegations and relevant supporting documents to enable a proper response. The employer may request limited details or a redacted summary only to provide administrative support, preserve evidence, coordinate witnesses or take necessary action, while maintaining confidentiality.

8. Can the respondent’s employer refuse to share CCTV or witness details?

The respondent’s employer should not refuse reasonable cooperation. However, it can ask the complainant’s IC to specify the date, time, location, camera angle, witness relevance or document requirement before sharing records.

9. Can the respondent’s employer conduct a parallel inquiry?

A parallel inquiry into the same PoSH complaint is not advisable. It can create confusion, duplication and procedural conflict. The respondent’s employer may conduct internal administrative steps only to preserve records, ensure cooperation and implement final action.

10. Who will impose punishment if the complaint is proved?

The complainant’s workplace IC may give findings and recommendations. The respondent’s employer will usually implement disciplinary action against its employee in accordance with service rules, employment contract and internal policies.

Best Practices for Organisations

For the complainant’s employer:

• Allow the aggrieved woman to access her own IC.
• Conduct the inquiry independently and confidentially.
• Share necessary notices and documents with the respondent.
• Seek cooperation from the respondent’s employer in writing.
• Maintain clear records of all evidence requests.
• Send findings/recommendations to the respondent’s employer for action where required.

For the respondent’s employer:

• Acknowledge the complainant IC’s jurisdiction.
• Nominate a single point of contact.
• Preserve relevant evidence immediately.
• Facilitate respondent and witness participation.
• Share documents only on written request.
• Avoid conducting a parallel inquiry.
• Maintain strict confidentiality.
• Act on the final report as per service rules.

Suggested Wording for Respondent Employer

If your organisation receives a communication from the complainant’s IC, you may respond as follows:

“We acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Internal Committee constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace to examine the complaint in accordance with the PoSH Act and the principles laid down in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India. We assure full cooperation in facilitating the inquiry process, including sharing relevant employee details, facilitating the respondent’s participation, preserving and providing relevant records, and coordinating witness availability as may be reasonably required by the Committee. Our representatives will support coordination without interfering with the independent functioning of the Committee.”

Conclusion

The judgment in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India is a significant development in PoSH law. It reinforces that the PoSH Act must be interpreted in a manner that supports the aggrieved woman’s access to justice and does not create unnecessary barriers based on organisational boundaries.

For cross-workplace complaints, the best practice is clear:

The complainant’s workplace IC should lead the inquiry. The respondent’s employer should cooperate fully. A joint inquiry may appear collaborative, but it can create avoidable legal and procedural risks.

Organisations must therefore build clear SOPs for cross-organisation PoSH complaints, evidence sharing, confidentiality, respondent participation and implementation of recommendations.

The post Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, Dec 2025: Can a PoSH Complaint Be Heard by the Complainant’s Workplace IC When the Respondent Works Elsewhere? appeared first on Viji Hari.

Beyond legal exposure, such incidents can lead to severe reputational damage, operational disruption, revenue loss, and global scrutiny. This serves as a strong reminder for organizations to reassess the effectiveness of their POSH mechanisms.

As your POSH partner, we would like to highlight key do’s and don’ts for HR and Internal Committees (IC) as an immediate action framework:

DO’s – What HR & IC Must Ensure

1. Treat “No Complaints” with Caution

• No complaints does NOT mean no issues.
• Regularly assess workplace climate through anonymous surveys and check-ins.

2. Encourage Early Reporting

• Create a culture where employees feel safe to raise even “uncertain” concerns.
• If an employee is unsure whether it qualifies as sexual harassment, do not dismiss—refer to IC.

3. Escalate All Concerns to IC

• HR must not filter, judge, or close concerns independently.
• Every concern—formal or informal—should be brought to the IC for review.

4. Take Anonymous Inputs Seriously

• Anonymous complaints or indirect signals must be documented and placed before the IC.
• Look for patterns, repeated mentions, or hotspots.

5. Ensure External Member (EM) Involvement

• The External Member must be actively involved, not just on paper.
• Their independence is critical for fairness and credibility.

6. Maintain Proper IC Constitution & Quorum

• Ensure correct IC composition at all times.
• Quorum must be maintained for all proceedings and inquiries.

7. Document Everything

• Maintain clear records of complaints, actions, timelines, and outcomes.
• Proper documentation is critical for legal defensibility and audit readiness.

8. Strengthen Awareness & Visibility

• Ensure employees know:

• Who the IC members are
• How to report
• That confidentiality is assured

DON’Ts – Critical Risks to Avoid

Do not ignore informal complaints or “casual mentions” What starts as a minor concern can escalate if ignored.

Do not delay action Delayed response can lead to loss of trust and escalation outside the organization.

Do not handle cases outside the IC HR or managers must not independently investigate or close matters.

Do not discourage reporting Any direct or indirect discouragement can lead to serious legal consequences.

Do not compromise confidentiality Loss of confidentiality = loss of trust in the system.

POSH compliance is not a one-time requirement—it is an ongoing responsibility. Organizations must move from policy existence to effective implementation and trust-building.

We would be happy to support you with POSH audits, IC training, and awareness initiatives.

Call us @7200500221.

The post POSH Wake-Up Call: Critical Lessons for HR & IC from a recent case appeared first on Viji Hari.

India’s New Labour Codes mark a decisive shift in workplace regulation. Multiple labour laws have now been brought under a unified framework to simplify compliance and strengthen employee protection.

These Codes apply across industries and cover all categories of workers. This includes employees, contract staff, consultants, gig workers, and platform workers.

While the POSH Act, 2013 continues to govern sexual harassment, the environment in which it operates has changed.

For HR teams and Internal Committees, this means one thing.

PoSH can no longer function as a standalone policy. It must align with wage laws, grievance systems, and workplace safety requirements.

This is where many organizations will either evolve or fall behind.

Why This Matters for HR Leaders and IC Members

The New Labour Codes bring a fundamental shift.

From policy based compliance to system based accountability.

This means

Your PoSH decisions now have financial and legal implications

Your documentation can be reviewed across multiple laws

Your coverage must extend beyond traditional employees

1. PoSH Financial Penalties Must Align with Wage Laws

Under the Code on Wages, 2019, IC recommendations involving financial penalties must follow strict rules.

What HR must ensure

Total deductions including PF, tax, and fines do not exceed 50 percent of wages The respondent is given a fair opportunity to be heard The penalty is recorded in the Register of Fines and Deductions

What this means

A legally sound PoSH inquiry can still fail if execution violates wage law.

Insight for HR Your role does not end with the IC report. It extends to legally compliant implementation.

2. Gig and Platform Workers: Expanding the Scope of PoSH

The Code on Social Security, 2020 formally recognizes gig and platform workers.

Compliance gap to address

Most organizations still have employee only PoSH policies.

What HR must do

Extend PoSH coverage to consultants, freelancers, vendor employees, and gig workers Ensure reporting mechanisms are accessible to them

Reality check If they are part of your workplace ecosystem, they are part of your responsibility.

3. GRC vs PoSH IC: A Critical Distinction

With the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, organizations must also set up a Grievance Redressal Committee.

Key differences HR must understand

GRC handles general workplace grievances PoSH IC handles sexual harassment complaints

GRC allows complaints up to one year PoSH follows a shorter timeline of three to six months

GRC resolves within thirty days PoSH inquiries may take up to ninety days

Risk area

Misrouting complaints Delays in action Legal non compliance

Important A sexual harassment case cannot be handled by GRC A workplace dispute cannot be forced into PoSH

4. Safety of Women Employees: From Policy to Proof

Under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, employing women in night shifts requires compliance.

Mandatory requirements

Prior written consent Documented safety measures Safe transport and working conditions

Why this matters for PoSH

In cases arising during late hours, documentation becomes your strongest defence.

Key principle If it is not documented, it does not exist.

5. Documentation Is Now Your Legal Defence

The New Labour Codes reduce complexity but increase accountability.

What has changed

Registers reduced from eighty four to eight Mandatory five year record retention Records can be maintained in electronic format Unified annual return replaces multiple filings

For PoSH compliance

Financial penalties must be formally recorded Inquiry must show due process followed Data must align with annual reporting

Shift for HR and IC Documentation is no longer administrative. It is legal evidence.

6. Appointment Letters: Your First Compliance Tool

The Codes mandate issuing appointment letters to all employees.

Strategic opportunity for HR

Attach PoSH policy Define expected conduct Establish awareness from day one

This is not onboarding. This is proactive risk management.

7. Managing Dual Timelines: A New HR Challenge

HR teams must now manage two parallel timelines.

PoSH complaints within three to six months General grievances up to one year

Risks – Employees missing reporting timelines Complaints being misclassified

Solution – Clear communication Strong triaging systems Prepared HR response

Insight The first response determines compliance.

From Compliance to Convergence

The New Labour Codes do not replace PoSH. They reshape how PoSH operates.

PoSH is now interconnected with wages, safety, contracts, and grievance systems.

Organizations that fail to align will face Implementation gaps Legal exposure Loss of employee trust

Quick Checklist for HR and IC

Financial penalties within fifty percent wage limit PoSH policy extended to gig and contract workers Clear distinction between GRC and PoSH IC cases Night shift consent and safety documentation Five year record preservation Unified annual return readiness PoSH policy linked to appointment letters

Closing Insight

No complaints is not a measure of compliance. Policy in place is not a measure of readiness.

The real question is “Are your PoSH processes aligned with the new labour reality?”

If your organization is still treating PoSH as a standalone compliance, it is time to rethink.

At CecureUs, we help organizations move from compliance to culture by aligning PoSH with the new labour framework.

Reach out to build a workplace that is not just compliant, but trusted.

The post New Labour Code 2025: Impact on PoSH Compliance – What HR and IC Members Must Know appeared first on Viji Hari.

This raises two critical workplace questions:

1. Is it legally permissible to take photographs of colleagues at work?
2. Is it permissible to post or share those photographs on social media or messaging platforms?

Legally, both actions require clear, voluntary, informed consent, and failing to comply can lead to serious civil and criminal consequences.

Why Photo Privacy Matters in the Workplace

Workplaces are not public spaces; they are professional environments where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A simple photo, when shared without consent, can lead to:

• Mental distress
• Workplace harassment
• Damage to professional reputation
• Misuse on digital platforms
• Legal liability for individuals and organisations

With stricter laws under the DPDP Act, organisations must treat photographs as personal data and ensure responsible handling.

1. Is It Legal to Take Pictures of Colleagues at Work?

Not without consent.

Under the DPDP Act 2023, photographs qualify as personal data. Capturing a person’s image without clear consent is considered unauthorised data processing.

In a workplace setting, this means:

• Clicking candid images of colleagues without informing them is not permitted.
• Photographing employees during events requires upfront disclosure.
• Consent must be voluntary, specific, and documented wherever possible.

Repeatedly photographing a colleague after they object can also be considered:

• Harassment
• Stalking under IPC Section 354D
• Violation of the constitutional right to privacy

2. Is It Legal to Share or Post Workplace Photos of Colleagues?

No. Sharing requires explicit, informed consent.

This includes sharing photos on:

• WhatsApp groups
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• Company social media pages
• Internal newsletters
• Websites, brochures, and promotional material

Once a photo is published, the legal responsibility increases because it becomes data dissemination and may trigger various provisions of the DPDP Act, IT Act, and IPC.

Even if someone permitted you to take their picture, that does not mean they consent to publication. This distinction has been repeatedly reaffirmed by Indian courts.

Legal Framework Governing Workplace Photography in India

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) 2023

The DPDP Act treats photos and videos as personal data. Any individual or organisation that collects, stores, or shares images becomes a Data Fiduciary and must:

• Obtain explicit consent
• Limit use to the stated purpose
• Ensure safe storage and processing
• Delete data upon request
• Notify individuals of their rights

Violations can result in:

• Investigations by the Data Protection Board
• Heavy monetary penalties
• Reputational and compliance consequences

2. Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 66E – Privacy Violation

Criminalises capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of private body parts without consent.
Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment or fine up to Rs. 2 lakh, or both.

Sections 67 and 67A – Obscene and Sexually Explicit Content

Criminalise publication or transmission of sexually explicit or obscene images.
Punishments range from 3 to 5 years imprisonment and significant fines.

3. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 354C – Voyeurism

Watching, capturing, or sharing private moments without consent.
Punishment: 1 to 3 years for first offence; higher for repeat offences.

Section 509 – Outraging the Modesty of a Woman

Posting a woman’s photograph without consent, in a way that causes insult or harassment.
Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and fine.

Section 500 – Defamation

Sharing images that damage someone’s reputation.
Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment and/or fine.

4. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Right to Privacy

The Puttaswamy Judgment (2017) firmly established privacy as a fundamental right.
Unauthorised photography or sharing of images in a workplace environment can qualify as a violation of Article 21, enabling individuals to approach High Courts or the Supreme Court.

Workplace Scenarios: What is Allowed and What is Not?

Scenario 1: Group Photo at a Team Lunch

Permitted only if all individuals have given consent to be photographed.

Scenario 2: Posting Team Outing Pictures on LinkedIn

Requires prior consent from every person visible in the image.

Scenario 3: Photographing a Colleague Without Their Knowledge

Not permitted. Violates DPDP Act and privacy rights.

Scenario 4: Sharing Photos on Messaging Apps Without Checking

Illegal if recipients did not consent.
Could trigger IPC 509, IPC 500, or even IT Act sections depending on misuse.

Scenario 5: Company Using Employee Photos in Recruitment or Marketing Collateral

Requires separate written consent, distinct from routine HR or joining documentation.

Scenario 6: Employee Repeatedly Taking Photos After Requests to Stop

Considered harassment or stalking under IPC 354D.

Relevant Case Laws Strengthening Photo Privacy

1. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court held that privacy is intrinsic to Article 21. Any unauthorised photography can violate this right.

2. Cases Under Section 66E (IT Act)

Courts have ruled that photographing or circulating images without consent, even outside traditionally private spaces, violates privacy.

3. Judicial Interpretation of Consent

Several High Courts have emphasised that:
Consent to being photographed is not equal to consent to publication.
This is critical for workplaces that use photos for branding or social media.

What Offences Can Non-Consensual Workplace Photography Lead To?

What Should Employees and Organisations Do?

For Employees

• Always seek permission before taking photos.
• Never post workplace images without explicit approval.
• Respect colleagues who prefer not to be photographed.

For Organisations

• Include a Photo and Video Policy in the Code of Conduct.
• Use DPDP-compliant consent forms for events, training sessions, and marketing use.
• Display notices when photography or videography will occur.
• Train employees on digital hygiene and workplace privacy.
• Provide clear channels for grievances related to photo misuse.

What to Do If Your Photo Privacy Is Violated

1. Request immediate takedown from the individual or platform.
2. Escalate to HR or the Internal Committee (if harassment is involved).
3. File a complaint under DPDP Act with the Data Protection Board.
4. Approach Cyber Crime Cell under IT Act provisions.
5. Seek constitutional remedy through the High Court for Article 21 violations.

Conclusion: Photo Privacy Is a Legal and Ethical Responsibility in Workplaces

Workplace photography must be governed by consent, transparency, and respect. With the DPDP Act 2023, Indian law has made it clear that employees have the right to control their images, and misuse—intentional or accidental—can lead to serious legal consequences.

In high-trust workplaces, respecting photo privacy is essential not only for compliance but for building a safe, inclusive, and psychologically secure culture.

The post Workplace Photo Privacy in India: Is It Legal to Click or Share Photos of Colleagues? appeared first on Viji Hari.

When her husband passed away unexpectedly, the grief was followed by disbelief —
she couldn’t access the bank account, the property, or even her insurance benefits.

Rita’s story isn’t about negligence. It’s about trust — and the lack of financial awareness that many women still face.

And that’s why the Married Women’s Property Act, 1874, remains one of the most empowering yet under-discussed laws for women’s equality and financial wellness.

Why the Married Women’s Property Act, 1874, Still Matters

Before this law, a married woman in India had no legal identity separate from her husband.
Her property, income, and assets were often considered his by default.

The Married Women’s Property Act (MWP Act), 1874 changed that.
It recognized women as independent legal entities, capable of owning, managing, and protecting their property.

This isn’t just about law — it’s about financial inclusion and gender equity, two essential pillars of DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion).

When women have ownership, they have agency.
When they have agency, they have a voice.

5 Key Rights Every Married Woman Should Know

1️⃣ Land or House in Your Name = Your Legal Property

Any property — land, flat, or house — bought or inherited in your name is your separate property.
It cannot be claimed by your husband, his family, or his creditors.

• Keep documents like sale deeds, tax receipts, and registration papers in your name.
• Update records post-purchase to ensure no ownership ambiguity.

Financial Wellness Tip: Always invest in property documentation awareness sessions — they are as vital as financial literacy.

2️⃣ Jewellery Is Your Stridhan — Your Absolute Right

Jewellery received before, during, or after marriage — whether from parents, husband, or in-laws — is legally yours.
Indian law classifies it as Stridhan, meaning your exclusive property.

Even if your jewellery is stored in a shared locker or marital home, it belongs only to you.

If it’s withheld, you can legally reclaim it.
This isn’t entitlement — it’s empowerment.

DEI Perspective: Recognizing Stridhan acknowledges the unpaid and invisible contributions women make in families and society.

3️⃣ Joint Property Doesn’t Always Mean Equal Ownership

Joint ownership can be misleading.
Unless your share is explicitly mentioned in the property deed, it doesn’t guarantee a 50–50 split.

Always verify:

• Whose name appears first in the document
• What share is legally recorded
• Who financed the purchase

Financial Wellness Tip: In dual-income families, ensure property and investments reflect actual contributions. Equality must extend beyond intention to documentation.

4️⃣ Term Insurance Under the Married Women’s Property Act = True Protection

A powerful but lesser-known provision — when a husband buys a life insurance policy and marks it under the Married Women’s Property Act, 1874, the policy benefits are reserved only for his wife and children.

Creditors or business debts cannot touch it.

Ask your insurer to include the MWP clause when purchasing a term policy.

This small step creates financial security independent of marital uncertainty — a cornerstone of women’s financial wellness.

5️⃣ You Can Own, Sell, or Defend Property in Your Own Name

The MWP Act empowers a married woman to sue, be sued, or defend property matters in her own name — as if she were unmarried.
You don’t need anyone’s consent to sell or protect your property.

This legal recognition reinforces autonomy and accountability — both key dimensions of workplace DEI and gender equity.

Financial Wellness and Inclusion — Beyond the Home

Women’s financial independence isn’t just a personal right — it’s a social equity goal.

Organizations focusing on DEI and financial wellness must go beyond workplace representation to empower women with legal and financial awareness.

At CecureUs, we advocate for a holistic inclusion framework —
where women are not only safe at work but also secure in their financial and personal spaces.

Because true inclusion is not just having a seat at the table —
it’s having ownership of your chair.

Takeaway:

• Know what’s in your name.
• Keep digital and physical copies of documents safe.
• Review nominations and beneficiary details regularly.
• Ask questions. Seek legal clarity.
• Because empowerment begins with awareness.

Awareness is not rebellion — it’s responsibility.
And every woman deserves both financial safety and social equality.

The post Married Women’s Property Rights in India : Land, Jewellery, and Term Insurance Explained appeared first on Viji Hari.

“Are you truly neutral when you enter an inquiry room?”

Silence usually follows. Because it’s hard.
Even with the best of intentions, bias creeps in—quietly, unconsciously, and sometimes with devastating consequences.

In this edition of the SafeSpace Series, let’s talk about why bias awareness and neutrality aren’t just nice-to-have values in IC investigations… they are legal, ethical, and cultural imperatives.

What Does Bias Look Like in a PoSH Inquiry?

Bias is not always loud or obvious.
It can show up in subtle ways like:

• Dismissing a complainant as “too sensitive” or “overreacting”
• Giving the benefit of doubt to a respondent because they’re senior or well-liked
• Assuming that a certain gender is more likely to lie
• Treating a friend, team member, or culturally similar colleague more leniently

Each of these assumptions chips away at neutrality. And in PoSH inquiries, even a perception of bias can unravel the entire process.

Why IC Neutrality is Legally Non-Negotiable

Every IC is bound by two key principles of natural justice:

1. Nemo judex in causa sua – No one should be a judge in their own cause
2. Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side

Neutrality isn’t just a guideline—it’s the foundation of both. A lapse can put the entire inquiry under scrutiny, and even trigger legal challenges.

Case Laws That Reinforce This Point

Let’s not take this lightly. Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized the dangers of IC bias:

1. V. Uma vs Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society (2022, Madras HC)
   A biased IC member with prior issues against the complainant led to the entire IC being reconstituted and the inquiry restarted.
2. Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs M/s Air France (2020, Delhi HC)
   Failure to give the complainant a fair hearing =flawed process= serious reputational damage.
3. Medha Kotwal Lele vs Union of India (2013, SC)
   A landmark judgment reminding us that the IC must be independent and conflict-free, in line with the Vishaka Guidelines.

4. Common Sources of IC Bias

   • Organizational hierarchy: “He’s the CEO. Why would he do this?”
   • Cultural bias: Favoring someone who speaks your native language
   • Gender bias: “Men don’t get harassed.” or “Women always complain.”
   • Confirmation bias: Searching only for facts that support your assumptions

   Sound familiar? That’s because these are deeply embedded patterns—and recognizing them is step one.

IC Members: Self-Awareness Before Service

Before participating in any inquiry, I urge every IC member to pause and ask:

“Am I truly neutral right now?”
“What assumptions am I carrying into this room?”

At CecureUs, we’ve created a Bias Awareness Checklist to help IC members reflect before, during, and after any inquiry.

 [Click here to access the 3-minute checklist]

What Does Neutrality Look Like in Action?

• Equal time, attention, and tone for both parties
• Avoiding judgment based on emotional expression
• Consistent body language and question style
• Courage to speak up when groupthink takes over
• Recusing yourself if personal biases can’t be set aside

Neutrality doesn’t mean being cold.
It means being fair, open, and objective, even when emotions are high.

Final Thought

In PoSH cases, bias is not just unfair—it’s unlawful.
The role of the IC is sacred. It protects not only the individuals involved but also the trust fabric of your entire workplace.

So let’s be conscious.
Let’s be fair.
Let’s replace unconscious bias with conscious fairness—one inquiry at a time.

The post Bias and Neutrality in PoSH Inquiries: A Non-Negotiable Responsibility for IC Members appeared first on Viji Hari.

According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 5 working adults experience a mental health challenge each year. In workplace harassment cases, the impact is often sharper — trauma, anxiety, or depression can directly affect how complainants and respondents engage with PoSH inquiries.

Handling such cases requires not only compliance but also sensitivity and empathy. That’s where a trauma-informed approach comes in.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Complainant’s Mental Health During Proceedings

In a large IT company, a young employee reported inappropriate behavior by her manager. During the inquiry, the complainant experienced panic attacks and severe anxiety. The IC recognized that continuing long sessions would worsen her trauma. They adapted by allowing shorter hearings, involving the company counselor, and permitting breaks.

Learning: Mental health struggles do not weaken the validity of testimony; ICs must create a safe environment for fair proceedings.

Case Study 2: Respondent’s Claim of Mental Illness

In a Tamil Nadu manufacturing setup, a respondent facing multiple harassment allegations claimed he was undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder and requested the proceedings be delayed indefinitely. The IC sought medical documentation. Upon expert verification, it was found that while the respondent had a medical condition, it did not impair his ability to respond. The inquiry continued with reasonable accommodations, ensuring timelines were not violated.

Learning: Mental health claims must be respected but also verified to avoid misuse as a delaying tactic.

FAQs on Mental Health in PoSH Inquiries

1. What is a Trauma-Informed Approach in PoSH inquiries?

A trauma-informed approach means recognizing that people involved in a PoSH case may be carrying the weight of trauma—before, during, or after the incident. Instead of questioning their credibility or rushing through procedures, the IC adapts its process to minimize further harm.

Key principles include:

• Safety: Ensuring both physical and emotional safety during hearings.
• Choice: Allowing flexibility, such as shorter sessions or breaks.
• Trust: Being transparent about the process and timelines.
• Empowerment: Giving both complainant and respondent a fair voice.
• Collaboration: Engaging mental health professionals when needed.

2. What if the complainant was mentally unwell at the time of the incident?

Yes, their testimony is still valid. The Internal Committee (IC) must ensure sensitivity in recording statements. Mental illness does not automatically discredit the complainant. Instead, the IC should consider medical evidence, contextual details, and corroboration through witnesses, documents, or digital records.

3. What if the complainant develops trauma after the incident?

It is common for complainants to experience anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress after workplace harassment. If the complainant is mentally unwell post-incident, the IC may allow breaks during proceedings, involve a counselor, or permit a support person to be present. This ensures the inquiry remains trauma-informed and does not re-victimize the individual.

4. What if the respondent is not mentally fit to defend themselves?

Natural justice requires that the respondent be given a fair chance to respond. If the respondent produces medical documentation of mental incapacity, the IC can pause proceedings until they are fit to participate. However, unnecessary delay tactics must be avoided—timelines under the PoSH Act (90 days for inquiry, 10 days for report submission) remain critical.

5. Can either party request a medical or psychological evaluation?

Yes. If either the complainant or respondent cites mental health as a concern, the IC may request a medical or psychological assessment to verify claims. This helps the IC balance compassion with fairness. The IC should document why such an evaluation was sought and how it influenced the findings.

6. Can the IC allow a support person during depositions?

Yes. While the law does not explicitly mandate it, ICs can permit a counselor, family member, or mental health professional to accompany the complainant, especially in trauma cases. This does not compromise confidentiality if proper non-disclosure agreements are signed.

7. What if mental health is cited as a defense or a delaying tactic?

The IC should evaluate the authenticity of the claim with the help of medical records. If the claim appears genuine, reasonable accommodations must be made. If it appears to be an excuse to stall proceedings, the IC can proceed with inquiry while documenting why it considered the defense weak.

8. Why is counselling support important for both complainant and respondent?

Counselling provides emotional stability, helps individuals process the incident, and prepares them to participate constructively in the inquiry. For the complainant, it reduces trauma and fear of retaliation. For the respondent, it helps them cope with stress and engage in the process responsibly.

Many organizations extend Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) to both parties during a PoSH case. This not only safeguards mental well-being but also reinforces trust in the system.

9. What should IC members keep in mind for trauma-informed inquiries?

Here’s a quick checklist for ICs to follow:

• Allow breaks if either party feels overwhelmed
• Document mental health concerns with care
• Engage EAP/counsellor support early
• Avoid leading or aggressive questions
• Keep proceedings confidential and non-intimidating

This checklist helps ICs balance fairness with empathy while staying within legal timelines.

Key Takeaway

Mental health concerns—whether of the complainant or the respondent—do not invalidate PoSH proceedings. Instead, they call for additional sensitivity, safeguards, and documentation by the IC. By adopting a trauma-informed approach, ensuring access to counselling support, and following a structured IC checklist, organizations can uphold both justice and employee well-being.

The post Mental Health and PoSH Inquiries : Frequently Asked Questions appeared first on Viji Hari.

That’s why it’s time to talk about Critical Behaviour Interviewing (CBI)—a powerful yet underutilized method that moves us from talking DEI to hiring for it.

What is Critical Behaviour Interviewing?

CBI, often grouped under the broader umbrella of Competency-Based Interviewing, focuses on one simple principle:

Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

Instead of asking hypothetical or generic questions, CBI invites candidates to describe how they’ve navigated real-world situations, especially those that required action aligned with core values—like fairness, empathy, courage, and inclusion.

Why It Matters for DEI?

We’ve all sat in interviews where candidates say, “I’m a team player” or “I really believe in inclusion.” But what does that look like in practice?

CBI pushes past performative answers and uncovers evidence of inclusive behaviours in the moments that matter.

At a global tech firm, two final-round candidates had identical resumes. Both were qualified.

But one had a powerful story:

She shared how a teammate’s ideas were constantly dismissed in meetings—because of an accent. Instead of staying silent, she raised it with the facilitator, suggested a round-robin format, and ensured everyone’s voice had space.

That story said more about her values—and how she’d shape culture—than any bullet point on her resume.

The Critical Behaviours That Signal Inclusion:

Here are just a few areas where you can apply this technique:

Allyship & Advocacy

• Tell me about a time you spoke up for someone who was being treated unfairly.

Cultural Awareness

• Share a situation where you had to work with someone very different from you. What adjustments did you make?

Inclusive Collaboration

• Have you ever changed how you lead or communicate to make space for others to thrive?

Integrity in Action

• Describe a moment when doing the right thing wasn’t the easy thing.

These aren’t trick questions. They’re windows into someone’s lived behaviours—and whether those behaviours contribute to a culture of equity and belonging.

Why Your Interviewers Need to Be Trained on This?

You can design the best DEI strategy in the world. But if your hiring managers aren’t trained to spot inclusive behaviours—or even worse, if they mistake “cultural fit” for “similar to me”—you’ll keep hiring the same types of people.

Here’s what CBI training gives your interviewers:

• Structured questions that reduce bias
• Rubrics for assessing inclusive behaviours fairly
• Confidence to challenge surface-level answers
• Language to dig deeper without overstepping

CBI makes your interviews not just more inclusive—but more effective. You hire for what people have actually done, not just what they say they believe.

Closing Thought

Inclusion doesn’t happen by accident. It happens when leaders are intentional—about what they value, what they reward, and who they bring in.

So, here’s the question for every HR leader and hiring manager:

Are your interviewers trained to assess inclusive behaviour—not just credentials?

It’s time we start hiring for the culture we want, not just the roles we need.

I’d love to hear from you—what inclusive behaviours do you believe every hire should demonstrate? Are you using CBI in your hiring process?

The post Hiring for Inclusion : Why Critical Behaviour Interviews Are the Game-Changer We’re Overlooking appeared first on Viji Hari.

But what happens when a respondent is mentally unfit to participate in the inquiry?

How should the Internal Committee (IC) proceed while staying compliant with the POSH Act—and also being trauma-informed, fair, and inclusive?

Let’s walk through a real-world-inspired scenario and break down the key steps the IC must take.

Case Scenario: When the Accused Is Mentally Unwell

Aarti, a young employee at a tech firm, files a formal PoSH complaint against Rajeev, her senior colleague. She alleges persistent, sexually suggestive jokes and boundary violations.

The IC steps in to initiate proceedings.

But something is off.

Rajeev seems disoriented, confused, forgetful. He breaks down during questioning. His manager shares that he’s battling bipolar disorder and had a relapse recently.

What now?

Understanding Mental Unfitness in PoSH Cases

Mental unfitness can be:

• Temporary (e.g., trauma, panic attacks, depressive episodes)
• Chronic (e.g., schizophrenia, PTSD, bipolar disorder, cognitive impairments)

The IC must tread carefully—protecting workplace safety while respecting individual dignity.

What the POSH Law (and Beyond) Says

While the PoSH Act doesn’t directly address mental incapacity, several provisions support a trauma-sensitive approach:

Section 9(2) – Extension of complaint filing deadline in valid cases
Rule 6(2) – IC must assist if complainant is unfit
Rule 9 – Allows for counselling
Section 12 – Interim relief like leave, transfer
Section 13 – Post-inquiry actions

Also relevant:

BNSS Section 367 – Trial suspension for unsound mind
BNS Section 84 – No criminal liability for acts by unsound individuals

How Can the IC Responsibly Proceed?

Here’s a 6-step playbook for handling mentally unfit parties:

1. Identify the Signs

Delusions. Confusion. Emotional breakdowns. Avoidance. Aggression.
These aren’t just red flags—they’re signals for support, not stigma.

2. Request Medical Evaluation

Before making assumptions, get a licensed psychiatrist’s assessment.
Always obtain informed consent.

3. Adjust the Inquiry Process

• Written responses > verbal interrogation
• Allow support person/guardian
• Use calming, neutral spaces
• Keep language simple
• Shorter, paced sessions

4. Document Everything

From observations to accommodations—track it all. It strengthens the inquiry’s credibility.

5. Maintain Dignity & Confidentiality

No labels. No gossip. No bias.
Be empathetic, but grounded.

6. Suspend or Defer if Needed

If participation is harmful to the individual, pause the process. Resume only when they’re medically fit.

What If Rajeev Is Found Guilty?

Despite his condition, if the IC finds enough evidence, it can recommend action under Section 13:

• Written apology
• Counselling/psychiatric treatment
• Transfer
• Withholding increments
• Termination (in severe/repeat cases)
• Sensitization training

Remember: Mental illness doesn’t excuse harmful behavior, but it requires sensitive handling.

The IC’s Role Is Delicate—But Doable

Balancing legal, ethical, and emotional dimensions is never easy.

But with the right tools, clarity, and empathy, the IC can:

• Ensure justice for complainants
• Respect the mental health needs of respondents
• Preserve workplace safety and dignity

At CecureUs, we guide organizations through complex POSH scenarios. From IC training to real-time case support, our mission is to build workplaces that are safe, inclusive, and trauma-informed.

 Reach out if you need help navigating tough PoSH cases involving mental health.

 Feel free to reshare or tag someone in HR or compliance who needs to read this.

The post When Mental Health Meets POSH : How Should the IC Respond? appeared first on Viji Hari.

At CecureUs, we supported thousands of employees through our confidential counselling services over the last financial year. The data we gathered offers valuable insights for every HR leader, DEI champion, and business head looking to build a mentally healthy workplace.

The Emotional Pulse of the Workplace

1. Stress & Anxiety Dominate

• 34% of all counselling sessions focused on stress and anxiety.
• 71% of these users were women, highlighting a heavier emotional burden often carried by female employees.

 Emotional fatigue remains a major challenge, especially for women balancing professional demands with invisible labor at home.

Relationship Challenges Are Universal

• 28% of sessions were related to relationship issues—personal, workplace, and marital.
• Interestingly, 58% of those seeking support in this category were men, versus 42% women.

 Emotional intelligence, communication struggles, and unresolved conflict at home or work can directly affect focus and performance.

Parenting Pressures Are Rising

• 10% of sessions addressed parenting-related concerns.
• Many working parents—especially in hybrid roles—are feeling stretched and seeking emotional support to better balance their dual roles.

Depression & Emotional Fatigue Require Urgent Focus

• A significant number of sessions were tied to depression and emotional burnout, reinforcing the need for early intervention and long-term mental health support frameworks.

Additional Key Insights

• 55% of all users accessing counselling were women.
• Most employees seeking help were in the 30–45 age group, a critical demographic for workforce productivity.
• 30% of English-speaking employees preferred counselling in their native language, indicating the value of culturally sensitive support.
• 7% of all complaints received were classified as critical, requiring immediate response and follow-up care.

Why This Matters for Employers

These numbers aren’t just statistics—they represent real people facing real struggles. They show that today’s employees are not just chasing performance metrics, they’re looking for emotional resilience, balance, and a culture that supports their whole selves.

What HR and Leadership Can Do

 Normalize mental health conversations
Foster a culture where saying “I’m not okay” is met with empathy—not stigma.

 Strengthen EAP awareness year-round
Keep visibility high, not just during wellness weeks. Make sure employees know it’s safe, confidential, and accessible.

 Equip managers with emotional intelligence tools
They are your first line of support. Train them to identify distress, hold space, and refer early.

 Don’t overlook men’s mental health
Men may delay seeking help. Design inclusive campaigns that actively reach them without judgment.

 Respect language and cultural preferences
Make counselling available in regional languages to deepen impact and comfort.

Final Thought

At CecureUs, we believe that a safe, productive workplace isn’t just built through compliance checklists—it’s built through compassion, connection, and consistency.

Let’s use these insights to design healthier, kinder, and more resilient workplaces in FY 2025–26—where mental health is not a one-off initiative but an everyday priority.

Because behind every data point is a human being—seeking to be heard, helped, and understood.

The post Inside the Mind of Today’s Workforce: What Our EAP Counseling Data Reveals (FY 2024–25) appeared first on Viji Hari.