This is the moment most ICs are completely unprepared for. Not because they do not care. Because nobody ever told them what the law requires them to do, in what order, starting from the hour the complaint arrives.

The POSH Act and its Rules lay out a sequence. It is not a suggestion. It is a statutory procedure, and deviation from it at any step can be used to challenge the validity of the entire inquiry, regardless of how carefully the rest of the process was conducted.

The sequence begins before the first hearing.

The IC must send a copy of the complaint to the respondent within seven days of receiving it. Not within seven days of deciding to proceed. Within seven days of receipt.

The respondent then has ten working days to submit a written reply, along with any documents and names of witnesses he intends to rely on. The IC does not begin substantive inquiry steps until that window has passed. Most ICs skip this and schedule a hearing immediately. That is a procedural failure at step one.

The hearing notices go to both parties separately, in separate communications, with the date, time, and location of the first hearing. Not in a joint email. Not in a group message. Separately. The complainant and the respondent are not informed together, and they are not present in the same room during each other’s examinations.

The first hearing records the complainant’s full statement. She presents her account. IC members may ask clarifying questions. The statement is read back to her, and she confirms it in writing.

The same process applies to the respondent. He responds to the specific allegations. His statement is read back and confirmed in writing. Both of these written records become part of the inquiry file.

Witnesses are examined separately, one side at a time. A witness from one side is not present when the other side’s witnesses are being examined. Cross-examination does not happen directly between the parties.

Either party may submit written questions to the IC. The IC reviews them, decides which are relevant and appropriate, and puts those questions to the other party or to a witness. The complainant and the respondent never question each other directly. This is not a courtesy. It is a statutory safeguard under Rule 7 of the POSH Rules, 2013, and its purpose is to protect both parties from intimidation while keeping the IC in control of the proceedings throughout.

The inquiry must be completed within 90 days of receiving the complaint. The inquiry report must be submitted to the employer within 10 days of completing the inquiry. The employer then has 60 days to act on the IC’s recommendations.

Picture your IC sitting down the morning a complaint arrives. See your Presiding Officer opening the file, moving through the sequence with clarity, sending the copy to the respondent before noon. Notice the difference between that IC and one that spends the first three weeks in email threads waiting for legal review.

When you bring your IC through an orientation with Kritarth Consulting, your committee leaves that session knowing exactly what to do on day one, day seven, and day ninety. Not a general sense of procedure. A specific working knowledge of the sequence the Act requires.

The complaint that arrives without warning is not the problem. An IC that does not know what to do when it does is.

Book a confidential review

Or visit: kritarth.in/safespace

On June 19, 2026, the National Commission for Women issued an advisory to all states and union territories. The distribution list is worth reading slowly. Chief Secretaries. Directors General of Police. District Magistrates. Senior Superintendents of Police. Commissioners of Police. Across every state and union territory in India.

The NCW did not write to your HR head. It wrote to the people who grant, renew, and cancel business licences. It wrote to the people who run district administrations. It wrote to the police.

That distribution list is not administrative routine. It is a signal about where accountability for POSH compliance is now being anchored, and it is not in the HR department.

The advisory calls for eighteen specific actions from state governments and district administrations. Mandatory annual POSH audits for all establishments with ten or more employees, with audit reports submitted to District Authorities. Non-conduct of audits to be treated as non-compliance in itself, not as an oversight. State-level POSH Monitoring Cells and digital compliance dashboards to track implementation across sectors. District Officers notified in every district as the nodal authority for monitoring and grievance redressal. Nodal Officers appointed at block, tehsil, taluka, ward, and municipality level to ensure last-mile access. Periodic compliance review meetings convened by district administrations. Consolidated annual reports reviewed at state level to identify gaps.

This is not the first signal. Maharashtra activated Section 25 inspection powers on May 14, directing more than 4,000 officers from 12 cadres to begin immediate inspections of private establishments. The NCW advisory of June 19 extended that same accountability logic to every state in the country, with a formal request to the administrative and police machinery to treat POSH compliance as a monitored obligation, not a self-reported one.

The Act has always required this. Section 4 requires an Internal Committee at every establishment with ten or more employees, not at head office alone. Every branch, every plant, every unit. Section 19(b) places the obligation for organising awareness sessions at regular intervals on the employer, not on the IC. Section 21 requires the IC to file an annual report with the District Officer every year. Section 26 prescribes penalties of up to fifty thousand rupees for non-compliance and licence cancellation for repeat offences.

None of these provisions are new. What is new is who is now checking.

Most Internal Committees Kritarth Consulting works with during advisory engagements share the same profile. The IC was constituted correctly on paper two or three years ago. The external member’s appointment has not been renewed. The IC has not met in over a year. The annual report has never been filed with the District Officer. Awareness sessions were organised once, by the IC rather than by the employer, which does not satisfy Section 19(b). The SHe-Box registration either does not exist or has not been accessed since it was created.

Picture the audit arriving at your office six months from now. Hear what the District Officer’s office asks for. Feel whether your IC file, as it sits today, would answer those questions cleanly.

That distance between what is in the file and what the audit will ask for is specific, closeable, and worth knowing before someone official asks.

When you book the 30-minute compliance review with Kritarth Consulting, you walk away with exactly that picture, a specific gap list and a clear sequence for closing it.

Book Here

Or visit: kritarth.in/safespace

SafeSpace is Kritarth Consulting’s POSH compliance practice. 28 active client organisations across India. IC formation, training, advisory, and inquiry support.

Share

You have been meaning to check. You have not checked.

The Maharashtra Women and Child Development Department activated a statewide inspection drive on June 11, 2026, directing more than 4,000 officers from 12 different cadres to conduct immediate inspections of government and private establishments across the state. Those officers are already in the field. They are not waiting for advance notice to appear. They are not sending courtesy emails. They are inspecting.

Src: India New Jobs

The circular operationalises the inspection powers available under Section 25 of the POSH Act and applies to government, semi-government, and private establishments across Maharashtra. Section 25 has been in the statute since the Act was notified in 2013. What Maharashtra did on May 14 was not create a new threat. It made the existing one visible by putting 4,000 officers in motion.

Where deficiencies are identified during inspection, monetary penalties and other action prescribed under the POSH Act may be initiated against the concerned establishment. Section 26 sets the penalty at up to fifty thousand rupees for a first offence. For a repeat offence, licence cancellation is available as a consequence. Not a warning. Not a show-cause. Licence cancellation, written into the statute.

Maharashtra is the most explicit state right now. It will not be the last. The inspection mechanism is in the Act. Every state government holds the same power under Section 25. What Maharashtra has demonstrated is that the mechanism works and can be operationalised quickly when the political will arrives. Other state governments are watching.

This is the moment to stop calculating risk and start looking at what is actually in place.

When an authorised officer arrives and asks to see your records, here is what they are examining against the Act. Section 4 requires an Internal Committee at every office or branch with ten or more employees. Not at head office only. Every establishment. Your Mumbai IC does not cover your Bengaluru unit. Your Hyderabad plant needs its own committee with its own Presiding Officer, its own external member, and its own records. Most multi-location organisations Kritarth Consulting has encountered over eighteen years of practice carry this gap without knowing it.

The external member’s appointment must be in writing, current, and from an NGO or person familiar with issues related to sexual harassment. An informal arrangement with someone who agreed verbally at a dinner two years ago will not survive inspection. The appointment letter must exist.

Section 19 of the Act places the obligation for organising awareness sessions at regular intervals on the employer, not on the IC. Awareness sessions the IC ran do not discharge the employer’s obligation if the employer itself did not organise them. The inspector will look for records of employer-organised sessions. Most companies do not have them.

Section 21 requires the IC to prepare an annual report and submit it to the employer and to the District Officer. Not to file it internally. To submit it to the District Officer. In 12+ years of working with organisations on POSH compliance, Kritarth Consulting has encountered very few companies below five hundred employees who have consistently filed this report.

SHe-Box registration is now part of the inspection checklist. Your IC must be registered on the national portal. The login must be active. The registration must be current.

Picture what your last IC meeting looked like. Hear what was actually discussed, and whether there are minutes that would hold up if someone asked to read them. Notice the distance between what you know is in that file and what the law requires to be there.

When you sit down with Kritarth Consulting for a 30-minute compliance review, you will walk away with a clear picture of exactly where that distance is. Not a general sense of risk. A specific, documented gap list that tells you what to fix and in what order.

The 4,000 officers already in the field across Maharashtra are building a record of what compliant and non-compliant looks like. Other states will use that record when they activate their own Section 25 powers.

The time to get your IC inspection-ready is before the authorised officer asks to see it.

Book a confidential 30-minute review: Here

Or visit kritarth.in/safespace

The assumption sitting underneath that inaction is one Kritarth Consulting encounters consistently across mid-size companies in manufacturing, IT services, chemicals, and fintech. The assumption is that POSH compliance is an HR process, not an inspectable legal obligation. That the appropriate government will not actually come. That the enforcement provisions of the Act are background noise from a law that was passed in 2013 and has not been seriously tested since.

That assumption is wrong. It has always been wrong.

Section 25 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 reads as follows. The appropriate government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest or in the interest of women employees at a workplace, may by order in writing call upon any employer or District Officer to furnish such information relating to sexual harassment as it may require, and authorise any officer to inspect records and the workplace and submit a report of such inspection within a specified period.

That provision has been in the statute since the Act was notified. What Maharashtra’s circular dated May 14, 2026 did was not create a new power. It delegated that existing power to twelve categories of officials across the state, including field-level officers, with a directive to define inspection targets and methodology. The inspection mechanism is now active. The question is not whether it will reach private sector employers. The question is what an inspector will find when it does.

Under subsection (2) of Section 25, employers and the District Officer are bound to submit all information, records, and other documents having a bearing on the subject matter of the investigation to the authorised officer. There is no provision to decline. There is no provision to defer. Production is obligatory.

Section 26 of the Act prescribes what follows a deficiency finding. An employer who fails to constitute the Internal Committee or comply with other provisions of the Act is liable to a penalty of up to fifty thousand rupees. That is the first offence. For a repeat offence, the penalty is more severe than the first conviction, and cancellation, withdrawal, or non-renewal of the employer’s business licence is available as a consequence. Not an advisory. Not a recommendation. Licence cancellation is written into the statute.

Most ICs Kritarth Consulting encounters would not survive a Section 25 inspection. The Presiding Officer is a senior woman employee in title, but the appointment letter cannot be located. The external member was nominated verbally three years ago and has not been reappointed. There is no evidence of awareness sessions conducted at regular intervals, which is the employer’s obligation under Section 19(b), not the IC’s. The IC has not prepared an annual report under Section 21, because no one in the organisation knew the report was required to be submitted to the District Officer, not filed internally. The Internal Committee is not registered on the SHe-Box portal. The complaint register has never been opened.

None of this is unique to any one company or sector. It is the standard gap between a paper IC and a functional one. The paper IC passes no inspection. The penalty provision does not care about intention. It responds to what is demonstrably in place on the day the authorised officer walks in.

Section 4 of the Act adds one more dimension that most multi-location organisations miss entirely. The obligation to constitute an Internal Committee applies to every establishment with ten or more employees. Not to the head office, with the assumption that its IC covers satellite offices. To every office. Every plant. Every unit. A single IC in Mumbai does not satisfy the Act for an operation that also runs offices in Pune and Hyderabad.

Kritarth Consulting’s SafeSpace practice has been working with organisations on POSH compliance since January 2014, across India and across sectors. When you walk through your IC’s current status on a call with Kritarth, you will leave with a clear picture of what is in place, what is missing, and what needs to move before an authorised officer arrives.

The inspection window is open. The statute has always given the appropriate government the power to use it.

Book a confidential 30-minute review: cal.com/shakti-kritarth/posh-compliance-call

Or visit kritarth.in/safespace

Subscribe now

It does not always come at the same time. Sometimes it is twenty minutes in. Sometimes it waits until the room feels settled. But it always comes. A male employee, usually not the most senior person in the room, asks the question that nobody on the facilitation agenda has prepared an answer for.

The quality of the silence that follows tells me everything I need to know about that organisation.

I have been in those rooms for twelve years. The silence is not hostility. It is not confusion. It is something more specific than both. It is the particular quiet of a group of people who have just realised that the session they are sitting in was not designed for everyone in it.

The arms cross. Not dramatically. Just slightly. And the next forty minutes of the program run on the surface of a room that has already, quietly, checked out.

When that question goes unanswered, three things happen in the organisation that nobody measures.

The male employees who were present do not leave the session feeling more careful. They leave feeling more resentful. Psychological safety does not increase. It fractures. The training produces the precise opposite of what it was designed to do. The session ends. The box gets ticked. The question remains.

The HR heads and managers who ran the session absorb the same blind spot. They tick the compliance box in good faith and carry a cultural rift back to the floor without knowing it. Next year they run the same session and the silence comes again, a little earlier, a little heavier.

And the organisation is left with a structural gap it cannot see. Not a legal gap. A governance gap. When a male employee raises a concern, the process exists somewhere in a policy document. The confidence to use it does not exist anywhere. Nobody in HR has been asked to build it because nobody in HR has been told it needs to exist.

Organisations that avoid this question are not just leaving male employees feeling unprotected. They are leaving the entire culture fractured at the foundation.

A fractured foundation does not appear in the annual compliance report. It appears in attrition numbers that HR cannot fully explain. In grievances that seem to come from nowhere. In the tone of team meetings where men and women are professionally polite and fundamentally wary of each other.

That wariness was built in a POSH session. By a silence nobody addressed.

If this is the conversation your organisation has been avoiding, this is where it starts.

cal.com/shakti-kritarth/posh-compliance-call

If the SafeSpace section is where your organisation lives right now, there is more every Monday.

Subscribe now

On paper everything looked right. Policy in place. Four members. External member nominated. Minutes from the last meeting filed.

Then I saw the presiding officer’s name. It was the CEO and co-founder.

I told them this was a problem. The POSH Act under Section 4(2)(a) is very specific. The presiding officer must be a senior woman employee of the organisation. Not the most senior person in the company. A senior woman employee. The founder in this case was male. And even if the presiding officer had been a woman, having the founder chair the IC creates a structural problem. Who does an employee go to if the complaint involves someone close to leadership. Who does the presiding officer report to when the respondent has more organisational power than the committee itself.

They had set this up three years earlier with legal help. Nobody had flagged it.

This is the gap I see most often. Not the absence of a policy. Not the absence of a committee. The presence of a system that looks compliant on the surface but would not hold up the moment a real complaint arrived.

And it is almost never just one gap.

The external member who was nominated two years ago has since left the organisation and joined a competitor. Nobody updated the IC constitution. The nomination letter in the file still carries her old designation. The external member slot is effectively vacant.

The IC had its last formal meeting eighteen months ago. There are no minutes from the current year. The annual report that should have been submitted to the District Officer was drafted internally but never actually sent.

The employee training happened. A vendor ran a one-hour session. But there is no attendance register, no completion record, no documentation that would satisfy an inspector asking for proof.

The SHe-Box portal was registered two years ago. The nodal officer listed on the portal left the company six months ago. Nobody updated the details.

None of these organisations are careless. Most of them genuinely want to do the right thing. POSH compliance has simply been treated as a one-time setup exercise rather than a living system that needs to be maintained, documented, and audited every year.

On May 14, the Maharashtra government issued a circular authorising district-level officers to inspect any workplace with ten or more employees. No advance notice required. They carry a 31-point checklist.

That checklist covers exactly these gaps. IC constitution validity including the presiding officer’s eligibility. External member details and current nomination status. Documented IC member training with attendance records. Employee awareness sessions with proof of participation. Annual report filed with the District Officer. SHe-Box registration with current nodal officer details. Complaint handling records and confidentiality protocols.

An inspector walking into any of the organisations I described above would find multiple failures on that checklist within the first thirty minutes.

The organisations that will have a problem are not the ones that never set up an IC. They are the ones that set it up correctly three years ago and assumed the work was done.

If you are not sure where your IC stands right now, the place to start is a structured review of your IC constitution, your documentation, and your annual compliance records against what inspectors are now checking.

That is exactly what we do at SafeSpace.

Visit kritarth.in/safespace to understand how we work with organisations on POSH compliance. If you want to talk through your specific situation first, the POSH Compliance Call is free and takes fifteen minutes.

Book here: cal.com/shakti-kritarth/posh-compliance-call