Last Updated on July 29, 2026 by Satish Mishra
Can an Internal Committee Member Be Held Liable for Ignoring Sexual Harassment Complaints? A Recent Court Order Highlights Employer Responsibilities and yes ICC liable for Ignoring POSH Complaints. Under India’s POSH Act, the employer bears the direct statutory liability for ignoring complaints, while individual Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) members face organizational or civil consequences for gross negligence and procedural breaches.
A recent criminal court order has brought renewed attention to the crucial role played by members of an Internal Committee (IC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The order emphasizes that allegations of workplace sexual harassment cannot be ignored merely because they are made orally. It also discusses the responsibilities of those entrusted with implementing the POSH framework within an organisation and their liability on ignoring POSH Complaints.
Ignoring POSH Complaints- Background
The prosecution case alleged that a woman employee working in a private company was subjected to repeated acts of sexual harassment by certain senior colleagues over an extended period.
According to the allegations, she initially raised oral complaints before persons in authority within the organisation. However, instead of receiving support or prompt intervention, it was alleged that no meaningful preventive action was taken.
The employee later approached the police, leading to the registration of a criminal case against several individuals, including an office head who was alleged to be associated with the Internal Committee under the POSH Act.
Employer Liabilities and Penalties
- Repeated Violations: Can lead to double the fine amount and potential cancellation of business licenses or operational permits. [1]
Individual ICC Member Exposure
- Statutory Limits: Direct fines under the POSH Act apply to the employer/management rather than individual committee members for organizational inaction. [1]
- Civil and Professional Risk: Members can face internal disciplinary action, termination, or civil lawsuits from affected parties for professional misconduct, bias, or breach of confidentiality (such as leaking identities, which carries a ₹5,000 fine under Section 17)
The Issue Before the Court
The primary question before the Court, at the stage of considering bail, was whether the allegations against the office head warranted custodial protection.
The prosecution alleged that despite receiving information regarding repeated incidents of workplace harassment, the Internal Committee member failed to take appropriate steps and thereby enabled the alleged misconduct to continue.
The defence, on the other hand, argued that the applicant had no direct involvement in the alleged acts, was posted at a different location, and had not received any formal written complaint.
Also Read-POSH ICC External Member Punjab Haryana Chandigarh
Court’s Observations on the POSH Act
The Court referred to the provisions of the POSH Act and observed that the law does not expect an aggrieved woman to face procedural hurdles when reporting sexual harassment.
Importantly, the Court noted that where a complaint is not made in writing, the Internal Committee has a statutory responsibility to provide reasonable assistance to the complainant in reducing the complaint into writing.
According to the Court, failure to extend such assistance may amount to a serious lapse in the discharge of responsibilities entrusted under the POSH framework.
Oral Complaints Cannot Be Ignored
One of the significant aspects of the order is the Court’s recognition that workplace harassment complaints are often initially communicated orally.
The Court observed that victims may hesitate to submit formal written complaints due to fear of retaliation, concern for career prospects, workplace hierarchy, or social stigma.
In such situations, organisational authorities are expected to respond sensitively and proactively rather than treating the absence of a written complaint as a reason for inaction.
Distinguishing Earlier Judicial Precedents
The defence relied upon an earlier judgment where proceedings against an educational institution’s head had been quashed on the ground that mere inaction did not amount to criminal abetment.
However, the Court distinguished that decision on facts. It observed that the allegations in the present case were materially different because the prosecution alleged active disregard of complaints and failure to perform statutory duties assigned under the POSH Act.
Accordingly, the Court held that the earlier precedent did not justify granting bail at that stage of investigation.
Bail Rejected
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the possibility of influencing witnesses, the Court declined to grant bail.
The Court observed that the investigation was still at an early stage and that custodial concerns could not be overlooked while examining the application.
Why This Order Matters
Although the order was passed only at the stage of deciding a bail application and does not determine guilt or innocence, it sends an important message regarding workplace compliance.
The decision highlights that organisations must ensure that their Internal Committees function effectively and that every complaint—whether oral or written—is handled promptly, sensitively, and strictly in accordance with the POSH Act.
It also serves as a reminder that members of the Internal Committee are expected to actively discharge their statutory responsibilities rather than treating complaints as routine workplace grievances.
Also Read-Need Lawyer As POSH ICC External Member- Read this!
Key Takeaways
- Oral complaints of workplace sexual harassment deserve immediate attention.
- Internal Committee members have a statutory duty to assist complainants in reducing oral complaints into writing.
- Failure to act on complaints may invite legal scrutiny depending on the facts of each case.
- Employers should ensure that POSH policies are implemented in both letter and spirit.
- The order reinforces the importance of timely intervention in preventing workplace harassment.
Conclusion
This recent order underscores the growing judicial emphasis on effective implementation of the POSH Act. While the criminal trial will ultimately determine the merits of the allegations, the Court’s observations serve as a reminder that workplace safety depends not merely on having a POSH policy in place, but on ensuring that complaints are addressed with sensitivity, seriousness, and prompt action.
For employers, Internal Committee members, HR professionals, and legal practitioners, the decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with statutory obligations under the POSH Act.
By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)
Source: Criminal Court Order dated 15 May 2026 concerning bail proceedings arising from alleged workplace sexual harassment and the duties of an Internal Committee member under the POSH Act.
