“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.

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.