含羞草社区

Ensuring fair and legally compliant investigations under the , is vital to ensuring safe and equitable work environments. Flawed inquiry processes not only undermine justice but erode trust in the system, deterring genuine complaints and exposing organisations to legal and reputational risks.

Courts have consistently emphasised the principles of natural justice, such as hearing both sides and not being a judge in one’s own case. Despite such guidance, workplace power dynamics and inherent challenges frequently compromise the neutrality of internal committees (IC). When allegations involve senior executives, subtle pressures may influence IC members, sometimes unintentionally, leading to biased or ineffective investigations.

To prevent this, IC members must actively identify and disclose possible biases or conflicts of interest. Organisations must establish clear policies that require IC members to recuse themselves should their impartiality be compromised. Regular training sessions should focus on increasing awareness of unconscious bias, reinforcing the importance of neutrality and equipping IC members with the ability to assess evidence objectively. Any allegation of bias or conflict should be immediately and thoroughly reviewed, and the decision fully documented. In highly sensitive cases, organisations should engage an independent external agency to preserve credibility and ensure a truly impartial investigation.

Further, the act requires every IC to have at least four members, including an external expert, to uphold the impartiality and objectivity of the inquiry. However, rule 7 of the issued under the act permits the inquiry to proceed with just three members, provided the presiding officer is present. This loophole enables companies to conduct inquiries without the external member, weakening independent oversight and increasing the risk of internal biases. To maintain the integrity of the process, organisations must ensure that external IC members are actively involved in the inquiry process, rather than serving as mere adornments.

Complaints involving employees from other organisations, such as vendors, consultants, or partner firms, adds another layer of complexity. The absence of a clear jurisdictional framework leads to delays, gaps in evidence and co-ordination challenges. Without structured collaboration between the ICs of both organisations, vital information may not be shared effectively, leading to an incomplete assessment of the case. Establishing well-defined protocols for evidence-sharing, witness co-operation and joint deliberations is essential to ensure a fair and seamless investigative process.

Confidentiality is another pressing concern that, if mishandled, may expose complainants to undue scrutiny, social backlash, or retaliation. Leaks, deliberate or inadvertent, may compromise the safety of those involved, influence witness testimony and discourage the reporting of future complaints. Organisations must enforce strict confidentiality to ensure that case details are restricted to those directly involved in the proceedings. At the same time, they must balance confidentiality with transparency, keeping parties informed about the status of their cases while safeguarding sensitive information.

Retaliation, during and after the investigation, remains a persistent issue that may deter individuals from seeking redress. Subtle forms of workplace exclusion, unfavourable transfers, negative performance reviews and social ostracisation may be indirect punishment for raising a complaint. Employers must take proactive measures to prevent retaliation, making it clear that any adverse action against complainants or witnesses will have serious consequences. Ensuring a non-threatening work environment during and after the investigation is as important as conducting an inquiry fairly.

An inquiry process that lacks fairness and integrity may bring not only legal repercussions but long-term damage to workplace morale and culture. Commitment to impartiality, accountability and justice must be at the core of every POSH inquiry, ensuring that the process is not merely a formal compliance but a genuine effort to uphold dignity and safety in the workplace.

Anirudh Mukherjee and Madhavi Dutta are partners at Kochhar & Co.