For ages, in this patriarchal society; women have been treated as inferior to men. They are expected to stay home, do household chores and look after the family. In ancient India, women were provided certain rights by giving them the title of "ardhangni" but, at the Vedic time too; when women used to stay at home they had to suffer from social evils like Sati, parda system, etc. and their disobedience led to punishment.

With modernisation, women are now given the right to education and step out of their homes and work. Tough with change in time social evils like Sati pratha etc are banned but, new times have led to new issues like rape and sexual harassment not only on streets, public places etc but also in the workplace. According to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, rape is defined as:
"A man is said to commit "rape" if he- penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her do so with him or any other person; or inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her do so with him or any other person; or manipulates any part of the body of a woman to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of the body of such woman or makes her do so with him or any other person; or applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions: Against her will.

Without her consent. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, because of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome Substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. When she is unable to communicate consent."

The Constitution of India under Article 14 guarantees equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of the country without any discrimination. Sexual harassment at the workplace violates Section 14, Section 15, Section 19(1)(g) and Section 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Protection against sexual harassment and the right of a woman to work with dignity are universally recognised human rights by international conventions and instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) by the Government of India on the 25th of June 1993.

Along with sexual harassment, the victims also have to face the issues of being blamed as the culprit, refusing to file an FIR by police officers, pressured by family to hide and not take action, and uneasy and blaming questions like What were you wearing? Why were you out for too long? With whom were you out? Etc. This unacceptable behaviour of men is given acceptance by stating it as harmless and natural male behaviour enjoyed by women. In order to curb all these issues, the POSH Act was made and accepted by India

Evolution of the POSH Act:

Harassment in the workplace is a pervasive issue affecting the personal and professional lives of women across the globe. In India, the POSH Act has laid significant milestones to protect and prevent females from getting harassed. The POSH Act is based on the Vishakha Guidelines given by the Supreme Court of India in the Vishakha vs. the State of Rajasthan and others case.

In India, a petition for enforcing Fundamental Rights for working women was filed in the Supreme Court of India for the first time.

The case is about Bhanwari Devi who was a social worker (Saathin) in Rajasthan. She was employed under the Rural Development Programme of the Government of Rajasthan. Her work included advocating social prejudices like child marriage and promoting women's rights in rural areas. In 1992, Bhanwari Devi attempted to prevent a one-year-old girl's marriage in a Gujjar family and as a result of her attempt, she was assaulted and gang-raped by a group of five men of the Gujjar community. Bhanwari Devi sought numerous challenges in her way of justice.

The police officers were uncooperative. The medical examination was delayed and the trial court gave its verdict acquitting the accused reflecting deep-seated biases and prejudices against women stating and including statements suggesting that upper-caste men would not assault a lower-caste woman.

A PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was filed in the Supreme Court against the State of Rajasthan by five non-governmental organizations led by an organization called Vishakha seeking judicial intervention for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. As a result of the PIL, Vishakha Guidelines were ruled by the Supreme Court of India on August 13, 1997. These guidelines were made as a comprehensive framework for the protection of women against sexual harassment and served as a basis for the POSH Act also known as the The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Vishakha Guidelines:

Sexual harassment is an unwelcomed sexually determined behaviour, which includes physical contact or advances, demands for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, pornography, and any other undesired physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. It can be humiliating and can cause health and safety problems, especially when the victim has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would cause a disadvantage to her in connection with her social, personal and professional life.

Sexual harassment needs not to be a physical act instead, it is any act that creates a hostile work environment, which includes lewd jokes, verbal abuse, and circulating lewd rumours. This can be a single act or a chain of acts making a pattern of behaviour comprising many such acts, and hence any act that creates a hostile work environment is considered to be sexual harassment.

Victims should report sexual harassment at the earliest to prevent the worsening of the situation but, the psychological stigma of reporting can be challenging, and victims may report after a long period or the victims might not even launch a complaint or an FIR in the police station in fear of her societal respect being harmed. Guidelines suggest a complaint mechanism should provide time-bound treatment, and not only within a short period.

Despite Section 376 of the Indian Constitution stating that an FIR must be launched without any hesitation by the police officer still, some police often refuse to lodge FIRs for sexual harassment cases, especially if the harassment occurred recently or has the involvement of any influential people, the police officers sometimes even ask the victims to remain quite to prevent their dignity and respect not only this but in some cases the officers blame the victims.

Victims must report such behaviour at the earliest and without any hesitation to avoid psychological stigma and ensure fair treatment.

According to the Vishaka Court, the Vishaka Regulations issued under Article 32 of the Constitution shall have the force of law and should be enforced by both the private and the public sector organizations.

The Vishaka ruling defines sexual harassment "as any unwanted sexually motivated activity, whether done directly or indirectly and includes actions such as making physical touch and moving forward a request or desire for sex services, comments with a sexual overtone, putting up explicit content, any more unpleasant verbal, nonverbal, or physical acts related to sex. Sexual harassment in the workplace occurs when any of these acts are carried out in a way that gives rise to the victim's reasonable fear that the conduct may be humiliating and could pose a health and safety risk including the threat to the victim's employment or work (regardless of whether she is receiving a salary, honorarium, or volunteer work from the government, public sector, or private enterprise)."

Some other judgements post Vishakha Case:

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. AK Chopra

In 1999, the Indian Supreme Court delivered an important judgement affirming the Vishakha rules established in the Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan case, which addressed the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. The Vishaka case highlights the need to provide a secure and respectful work environment for women. At the Apparel Export Promotion Council (APEC), AK Chopra was a senior officer who during an official trip to Mumbai was accused of harassing a female subordinate. He was alleged to have inappropriately made physical advancements towards the woman irrespective of her resistance. A complaint was made against AK Chopra to the management and an inquiry committee was called upon Chopra where he was found guilty resulting in his dismissal from services.

Chopra challenged his dismissal In the Delhi High Court and the ruling overturned the council's decision, citing insufficient evidence of molestation or physical assault as traditionally defined. The High Court's ruling was based on a narrow interpretation of sexual harassment, solely focusing on overt physical assault.

The AEPC approached the Supreme Court of India upon the dissatisfaction of the High Court's judgement. The Supreme Court ruled that even without physically assaulting, Chopra's behaviour still qualified as sexual harassment because it was unwelcome and made the complainant feel uneasy and in danger. The court ruled that the impact on the victim is what matters and not the mens-rea (mental objective behind the action) and thus, this explanation affirmed with the Vishakha Guidelines and its objective was to promote awareness about sexual harassment and to establish a safe environment at workplace.

The Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra case is connected to the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case in regards with the implementation and strengthening of the principles set by the Vishakha Guidelines. These guidelines introduced a complete structure to deal with sexual harassment at the workplace in India. The Vishakha Guidelines imposed a duty on employers to implement preventive measures and set up complaint mechanisms at their organisation so as to provide females a safe working environment. The AEPC vs. A.K. Chopra case solidified these principles by expanding the definition of sexual harassment, guaranteeing women's right to a secure work environment.

The decision by the Supreme Court in the AEPC vs. A.K. Chopra case marked a major advancement in combating workplace sexual harassment. The case highlighted the importance of a safe and respectful workplace for females and imposed a duty on employers to shield and protect their employees from all types of harassment. Both the cases (Vishakha case and AK Chopra case) have played an important role in influencing India's legal and social structure regarding women in the workplace and the establishment of the "Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)."

Jaya Kodate vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University

The case of Jaya Kodate vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, which was ruled on by the Bombay High Court in 2014, stands out as a significant example in the realm of sexual harassment legislation in India. This scenario shows the difficulties and detailed procedures in handling workplace harassment, highlighting the principles outlined in the Vishakha Guidelines.

Jaya Kodate, who filed a complaint, worked at Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University as an employee. She lodged a report accusing a co-worker of sexual harassment. After she lodged her complaint, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was established under the guidelines of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Following an inquiry, the ICC found the accused to have committed misconduct. As a result, disciplinary actions were recommended for the defendant.

Despite this, the defendant contested both the ICC's founding and the decisions made by the Bombay High Court. The main argument was that the ICC's makeup did not comply with the POSH Act, mainly because the committee did not include an NGO representation as necessary. The defendant argued that this procedural mistake rendered the ICC's decisions and recommendations void.

The Bombay High Court evaluated the setting up and functioning of the ICC by considering note of the POSH Act and the key values of the Vishakha Guidelines. The Court emphasised that procedural standards, as mandated by the POSH Act, that originated from the Vishakha Guidelines, must be valued in order to guarantee equal treatment and impartiality while monitoring accusations of sexual harassment. This is because maintaining independence and objectivity throughout the investigation depends on having an outside representative from an NGO present.


The Court deliberated over the matter and came to the conclusion that the ICC was not legally formed since the required foreign member was not present.
The link between the Jaya Kodate vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University case and the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case is in establishing an effective approach for dealing with workplace sexual harassment and putting process concepts into effect. The Vishakha case established the fundamental rules for addressing and eliminating sexual harassment. It highlighted the importance of an unbiased complaints board's effective operation.

The Jaya Kodate case underscores the importance of legal procedures to allow the ICC to resolve cases of sexual harassment, it also mentions the importance of the presence of an individual member from an NGO as mentioned in the POSH Act and the Vishakha Guidelines for an independent and reliable enquiry.

The case of Jaya Kodate exemplifies the judiciary's efforts to uphold equity and justice in addressing workplace sexual harassment. It highlights the importance of following procedures, as failing to do so reduces the efficacy of the resolution process. Along with the Vishakha case, it demonstrates the ongoing advancement and implementation of legal norms in India to safeguard women's rights and promote a secure working environment.

Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University and Others

An effective example of other freedom squeezes for generalizing sexual harassment in the Indian academic organization is the Somaya Gupta vs Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Others 2011 of the Delhi High Court. This case shows that there is a need to strictly follow procedures and Vishakha rules to create a fair and effective way of addressing such complaints.

A woman worker, Somaya Gupta, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, reported that her senior in office was sexually harassing her. Since the POSH Act had not been passed yet, she filed and then an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was set up to look into the allegations under the Vishakha Guidelines.

The ICC conducted a study and formed a conclusion that the accused performed the misconduct. In this case, the committee recommended that appropriate actions should be taken against the accused. Still, the defendant contested the findings of the ICC and the sanctions that the University took in the process. Procedural irregularities in the course of the inquiry and accusations of bias in the ICC were the main causes of this challenge.

Delhi High Court revisited the case by focusing on the Administrative problem-solving perspective of the III's investigation procedure. The Court analysed the very consideration, namely whether the ICC complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness as accustomed by the Vishakha Guidelines.

The Supreme Court of India in Vishkha vs the State of Rajasthan gave certain standard that demands the formation of a complaint committee to provide justice and neutrality on the complaints relating to sexual harassment. Regarding 'Gender Mainstreaming,' the guidelines emphasized the establishment of awareness of gender and a favourable environment for females in the workplace.

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the suggestions of the ICC in its decisions. The court underlined that ICC was properly established by the Vishakha Guidelines, which involved having an external member from an NGO to guarantee fairness.

The Court determined that the investigation was carried out in a fair manner, allowing the complainant and the accused to present their arguments adequately.
The link between the Somaya Gupta vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University case and the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case is found in their compliance with the procedural safeguards and principles of fairness outlined in the Vishakha Guidelines. The Vishakha case provided detailed instructions for dealing with and stopping sexual harassment in the workplace, highlighting the importance of having a properly organized complaints committee and conducting a just investigation process.

The case of Somaya Gupta highlights the significance of these procedural requirements. It emphasizes the importance of the judiciary in ensuring that reports of sexual harassment are dealt with very seriously and following established rules. Having an external member from an NGO, as required by the Vishakha Guidelines, was crucial in confirming the fairness and trustworthiness of the ICC in this situation.

This case demonstrates how the Vishakha Guidelines still play a crucial role in influencing the legal and procedural guidelines for addressing workplace sexual harassment in India. The Delhi High Court ensured that the complainant's rights were safeguarded and the integrity of the redressal mechanism was preserved by following the Vishakha Guidelines.

The legal case involving Somaya Gupta and Jawaharlal Nehru University underscores the enduring influence of the Vishakha Guidelines in guaranteeing a secure and equitable work environment for women. It emphasizes the critical adherence to correct procedures and the maintenance of justice in addressing allegations of sexual harassment, thereby reinforcing the foundational principles established in the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case. This case acts as a testament to the importance of fostering workplaces where women feel valued, safe, and empowered to report any instance of harassment or discrimination.

Dr. T.V. Ramakrishnan v. Kannur University
Kannur University was involved in an important case, the case of Dr. T. V. This case describes how the courts view proscribed behaviour and the necessity of adherence to the rules in order to create a safe and professional workplace. It is linked to the guidelines laid down in the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case, which established the framework for addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Dr. T.V. Ramakrishnan, who filed the petition, held a senior position at Kannur University. He was accused of behaving inappropriately and harassing female coworkers. After the accusations, the University formed an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to look into the complaints, following the Vishakha Guidelines, which were the standard for dealing with sexual harassment at work before the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The ICC carried out an extensive investigation and discovered enough proof to back up the accusations against Dr. Ramakrishnan. The committee's report pointed out examples of unwelcome conduct and determined that the accused had breached the standards of a respectful and secure work setting. Following the ICC's suggestions, the University opted to enforce disciplinary measures on Dr. Ramakrishnan, which entailed suspension and an additional investigation into his behaviour.

Dr. Ramakrishnan disputed the conclusions of the ICC and the disciplinary measures enacted by the University in the Kerala High Court. He claimed that the examination procedure was unfair and partial and that the proof against him was not enough to justify such strict punitive actions. He argued that the Vishakha Guidelines' procedures were not adequately adhered to. The Kerala High Court reviewed the ICC's investigation process for procedural fairness and integrity. The Court examined if the University followed the Vishakha Guidelines, which require a complaints committee with a fair composition, including an external member from an NGO for impartiality. The guidelines also stress the significance of confidentiality, giving both parties a fair hearing, and shielding complainants from retaliation.

The Kerala High Court affirmed the conclusions and suggestions of the ICC in its ruling. The Court determined that the University established the ICC following the Vishakha Guidelines and conducted the inquiry process fairly and impartially. Having an external member from an NGO at the ICC was specifically recognized as essential for maintaining the inquiry's credibility and impartiality. Court pointed out that the University had reasonable grounds basing on evidence and severity of misconduct to take the actions that it did.

How the Dr. T. V. Ramakrishnan vs. Kannur University case is connected to the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case is that the former should adhere to the procedural safeguards and the principles laid down in case of Vishakha Guidelines. The case of Vishakha in the Supreme Court of India in 1997 consisted of elaborate instructions for the prevention of and protection against sexual harassment in the workplace. Sub-requirements within these rules emphasized the proper structure of a complaints committee, the fair and transparent procedure of investigations, and the protection of the parties involved in the complaint process.

From the case analysis of Dr. T. V. Ramakrishnan, it is clear that procedural requirements are important and it is the judiciary's duty to uphold labour complaints dealing with workplace harassment, specifically guaranteeing that they are dealt with earnestly while following laid down practices.

Thus following Vishakha Guidelines the Kerala High Court has not only protected the complainants' rights but also the credibility of the redressal mechanism.

Therefore, the case of Dr. T. V. Ramakrishnan v. Kannur University shows how the Vishakha Guidelines continue to make workplaces safer and fair for all. They stress the necessity of adherence to correct procedures and objectivity while handling the complaints of sexual harassment, thus corresponding to the essentials that were outlined in the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case.

POSH Act, 2013: Overview

The Indian government passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act in 2013 to protect women from sexual harassment and abuse at the workplace. It is a law that seeks to check cases of workplace sexual violence and foster workplace safety for women.

It also seeks to increase knowledge about sexual violence and provide victims with the necessary legal solutions. The 2013 POSH Act mandates that organizations establish an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to address complaints of sexual harassment and ensure a secure workplace for women employees.

The POSH Act is a crucial measure in guaranteeing a secure and dignified work environment for women in India.

The POSH Act, officially called The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, is a significant law in India that focuses on protecting the safety and dignity of women at work. It was framed to have robust legal provisions designed to address the phenomenon of sexual harassment at the workplace arising from the Vishakha Guidelines laid down by the apex court in 1997.

Under the provisions of POSH Act, any establishment that employs ten or more people must form an ICC through which complaints can be lodged systematically. To guarantee fairness, the ICC needs a senior female staff member in charge and external representatives from organizations supporting women's issues.

Major components of the law consist of an all-encompassing explanation of sexual harassment, covering physical contact, requests for sexual favours, sexually suggestive comments, displaying pornography, and any unwanted physical, spoken, or silent actions of a sexual nature. Employers must implement preventative actions, such as organizing educational campaigns and prominently showcasing the Act's regulations.

The Act lays out a thorough procedure for addressing grievances, guaranteeing confidentiality and shielding complainants from reprisal. It also enforces consequences for failure to comply, highlighting the employer's duty to establish a secure work setting. The POSH Act plays a crucial role in protecting women's rights and advancing gender equality in the workplace.

POSH Act, 2013: Key Features

The POSH Act is formally called the The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 enacted in India to protect women against workplace sexual harassment.

Definition of Sexual Harassment in Detail

• This Act addresses a number of behaviours that are deemed as sexual harassment and these include any of the following actions:
  • Touching
  • Asking for sexual favours
  • Making sexual remarks
  • Displaying pornography
  • Anyone else who commits other forms of sexual misconduct

Key Provisions of the POSH Act

• The employer, having more than ten employees, is bound to form and set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in every office or branch.
  • The chair of the ICC should be the head of the company and a female
  • There must be one external member affiliated with an NGO or association that protects women
  • This guarantees a neutral and just investigation procedure
• LCC (Local Complaints Committee):
  • There is also the formation of a Local Complaints Committee which operates at the district stage to sort the complaints arising from organizations with less than ten employees or where the complaint is against the employer only
• Preventative Steps:
  • Employers must be proactive in preventing sexual harassment
  • This involves scheduling frequent awareness initiatives
  • Informing employees about the Act
  • Prominently showing the penalties for sexual harassment
• Procedure for Addressing Complaints:
  • The Act has features for how the complaints are to be handled and how the investigations are to be done
  • The ICC needs to complete the investigation within 90 days and inform the employer of the outcome
  • Recommendations made during the investigation must be reported to the employer within 60 days
• Secrecy and Safeguarding:
  • The complaints procedure incorporates confidentiality of the complainer's identity and other features
  • It includes protective measures for the accuser and witnesses to prevent retaliation or physical assault
• Consequences for Failure to Comply:
  • Employers who fail to meet the clauses of the POSH Act may face prosecution and fines
  • Higher fines and withdrawal of licenses are possible in the current industrial and societal atmosphere
• Rights of Employees and Responsibilities of Employers:
  • The Act clearly outlines the responsibilities of employers and the rights of employees
  • Maintains a safe work environment free of sexual harassment

Challenges in the Implementation of POSH Act 2013

• The POSH Act 2013 was introduced in India to protect women at the workplace from sexual harassment
• Despite good intentions, its operation has faced some challenges:
  • Low awareness of the law in some regions makes it difficult for victims to report incidents
  • Many business organizations lack structures for dealing with grievances or fail to inform employees about their legal remedies
  • Organizational culture needs to be addressed as a cause of sexual harassment
• Proper education and information dissemination can help the POSH Act 2013 protect women from workplace sexual harassment and ensure their professional security

Difference between the POSH Act, 2013 and Vishaka Guidelines:

There are, however, certain basic differences that tend to make the POSH Act of 2013 more different from the Vishakha Guidelines in terms of its legal proposition, scope, and enforceability. While the Vishakha Guidelines were crafted by the Supreme Court of India in 1997, POSH Act was enacted by the Indian Parliament in the year 2013. This legal status enhances the authority of the POSH Act and makes them mandatory for all workplaces without making them a temporary remedy like Vishakha Guidelines.

About its extent, the POSH Act offers a more thorough structure for dealing with sexual harassment. It clearly comprehensively outlines sexual harassment, encompassing a range of unwelcome behaviours beyond just physical advances, such as both verbal and non-verbal actions of a sexual nature. The law requires the creation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in workplaces with clear rules for how they should be set up and operated, guaranteeing a systematic way of addressing complaints.

In addition, the POSH Act also prescribes penalties for non-compliance and thus emphasizes the contingency by employers and preventive measures to acts of sexual harassment. Whereas the Vishakha Guidelines also laid a decisive foundation for the formation of general perception and approach toward workplace harassment at least in the early stages, they did not have legal backing or means of compulsory implementation like the POSH Act.

Conclusion:
The current law that has been working since Amendment 2013 Concerning Workplace Harassment in India can be termed as a good hope. Originally known as the Vishaka Guidelines which were formulated by the Indian Supreme Court in the year 1997, this law has undergone a lot of changes over the years in its attempt to provide the framework that would protect and implement women's rights and their dignity at the workplace.

The attempts of activists, advocates and lawmakers towards formulating the POSH Act perfectly explain these tenacious pushes to provide safe places of work for females. The provisions concerning workplace harassment have continuously enhanced and developed for some time such cases as Vishakha vs. the State of Rajasthan & other legal judgments including Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A. K. Chopra, Jaya Kodate vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Somaya Gupta vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University, Dr T. V. Ramakrishnan vs. Kann

There are crucial sections of the POSH Act which are as follows: The formulation of the provision of sexual harassment; the formation of the Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs); the preventive measures; the process of the complaints; the punitive measures in case of non-compliance which go to show commitment from the government in ensuring that the workplace is safe and proper, especially for women.

Nonetheless, some obstacles are yet experienced in the attempts to enforce the POSH Act. Lack of educational and informational materials; ineffective ways of processing complaints in some organizational structures; the extent of the dissemination of the organizational culture is a major question. Such issues call for collective undertakings by the stakeholders such as employers, employees, non-governmental organizations and government departments.

Thus, as the attempts to conduct the war against the workplace harassment continue, POSH Act is one of the ways India has as it strives to achieve workplace safety and gender parity. Therefore, by accumulating and enforcing information, knowledge and awareness alongside enforcement of mutual respect and esteem for other people it will be possible to pursue setting up conditions to enable any man or woman practice his or her profession without any form of harassment or discrimination.

Written By: Bhoomi Mittal