POSH: ₹50,000 Fine if Employer Failed to Display Internal Committee Details

In the eyes of the Indian judiciary, an Internal Committee that exists only on paper is as good as no committee at all. A simple oversight—forgetting to pin a list of names to a notice board—can cost an organization ₹50,000 in fines and, in some cases, the very license that allows them to operate The

According to Section 19(b) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (commonly known as the POSH Act), every employer has a legal obligation to display specific information regarding the Internal Committee (IC).

What must be displayed?

The law requires the employer to display the following at a conspicuous place (a visible location where employees frequently gather, like a main notice board, reception, or cafeteria) in the workplace:

• The Order constituting the IC: This includes the names of the members.
• Contact Details: While the Act specifically mentions the “order,” best practices and subsequent judicial observations emphasize that the names and contact details (email/phone) of the IC members must be easily accessible so an aggrieved person knows who to reach out to.
• Penal Consequences: The notice must also state the consequences of committing acts of sexual harassment.

Why is this mandatory?

The primary goal is to ensure that the redressal mechanism is accessible and transparent. If an employee does not know who is on the committee or how to contact them, the organization is considered non-compliant with its duty to provide a safe working environment.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with Section 19 of the POSH Act can lead to:

• Fines: A penalty of up to ₹50,000 for the first offense.
• Repeated Offenses: Double the fine and potentially the cancellation of your business license or registration.

Best Practices for Display

To ensure you meet the “conspicuous” requirement, consider these steps:

1. Multiple Locations: If you have multiple floors or buildings, place the notice on each floor.

2. Local Language: Display the notice in English, Hindi, and the regional language of the majority of your workforce.

3. Digital Display: In addition to the physical notice board, it is highly recommended to post these details on the company’s Intranet, HR portal, or employee handbook.

To support the mandatory nature of displaying the Internal Committee (IC) details, Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that compliance with the POSH Act is not just a “paper requirement” but a substantial duty to ensure an accessible redressal mechanism.

Here are the key case laws and judicial observations:

1. Global Health Private Limited vs. Local Complaints Committee (2019)

In this landmark case involving a major hospital (Medanta), the Madhya Pradesh High Court took a very strict view of non-compliance.

• The Ruling: The court upheld a fine of ₹50,000 specifically because the employer failed to constitute a proper IC and failed to display the mandatory details as required by the Act.
• Key Takeaway: The court observed that the POSH Act is “social welfare legislation” and must be interpreted liberally to protect women. It ruled that failing to inform employees about the IC’s existence and members’ names through a conspicuous notice board is a punishable offense.

2. Jaya Kodate vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (2014)

The Bombay High Court highlighted the importance of transparency in the IC’s constitution.

• The Observation:The court emphasized that employees must know who is on the committee to ensure there is no institutional bias.
• Key Takeaway:If the names are not displayed, the employee cannot exercise their right to object to a member (for example, if a member is a direct supervisor or has a conflict of interest). Therefore, the public display of the IC list is a prerequisite for a fair inquiry process.

3. Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs. Air France India (2018)

The Delhi High Court invalidated an entire inquiry because the IC was not constituted strictly according to Section 4.

• The Connection:While the case focused on the “External Member,” it reinforced the principle that every technical requirement of the IC (including its formal notification and display) must be followed. If an employee is unaware of the IC due to lack of notice, any subsequent delay in filing a complaint can be held against the employer, not the victim.

4. Sohail Malik vs. Union of India (2025/2026 Observations)

Recent judicial trends (including observations in late 2025) have reiterated that the “workplace” is broadly defined.

• The Observation:Courts have noted that for the “redressal mechanism to be effective, it must be visible.” This includes the mandatory requirement under Section 19(b) to display the order of the IC at a “conspicuous place.”

Summary of Legal Mandate