The Section 4 IC test: No external member means your PoSH findings are legally void.

Three women, three workplaces, one broken system: The Madras High Court’s sweeping PoSH Act order

Dr. Supraja was an Assistant Medical Officer at the Government Ayurveda Medical College in Tamil Nadu. She did something that should have been routine: she supported a colleague’s sexual harassment complaint against a superior. Her reward was a suspension order. Across town, Dr. R.K.M. Nair, a colleague at the same institution, complained of sexual harassment by an in-charge RMO. The Principal, instead of acting, shielded the perpetrator and retaliated against the complainants. At the Arasu Rubber Corporation, a third woman employee was punished for allegedly filing a false sexual harassment complaint — after an Internal Committee that was improperly constituted, without an external member, found against her.

Three separate writ petitions. One common thread: the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — the PoSH Act — was being systematically ignored, misapplied, and weaponised against the very women it was meant to protect.

On November 21, 2024, Justice R.N. Manjula of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, delivered a common order in Dr. Supraja & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (W.P.(MD)Nos.13981, 9747 & 12601 of 2024) that did far more than resolve three individual grievances. It exposed a systemic failure across Tamil Nadu’s workplaces — government and public sector — and issued a set of directions that every employer, every HR head, and every legal officer in the state needs to read.

The suspension that should never have happened

Dr. Supraja’s case is a textbook example of secondary victimisation. She was not the complainant. She was a supporter of a colleague who had filed a complaint. Yet the institution suspended her. The message was clear: if you stand with a woman who speaks up, you will pay the price.

The court did not mince words. In its order dated June 28, 2024, it noted that retaliatory action against supporters of complainants “defeats the objects of the PoSH Act.” By the time the final order came, the suspension had already been revoked by the government. But the court used the opportunity to expand the scope of the proceedings, impleading the State Commission for Women, the National Commission for Women, and the Union Government. This was no longer about three women. It was about every woman in every workplace in Tamil Nadu.

The Internal Committee that wasn’t

The case of the Arasu Rubber Corporation employee was even more stark. She filed a complaint. An Internal Committee was constituted. It found her complaint to be false. She was punished. She appealed. The appellate authority rejected her appeal. She came to the High Court.

What the court found was a procedural disaster. The Internal Committee had no external member — a direct violation of Section 4 of the PoSH Act, which mandates that every IC must include at least one member from a non-governmental organisation or an association committed to women’s issues. Worse, the committee was composed entirely of subordinates of the respondent. The inquiry was biased. The finding of a false complaint was based on nothing more than suspicion about the timing of the complaint.

Justice Manjula quashed the punishment order dated June 27, 2022, and the appellate rejection dated January 23, 2023, in WP(MD) 12601/2024. The court held that an IC not constituted in accordance with Section 4 renders all its proceedings and findings “vitiated and non-est.” That is a strong word — non-est, meaning it never existed in law.

The rule the court applied: ICs cannot recommend specific punishments

One of the most important takeaways from this judgment is about the limited role of the Internal Committee. Under Section 13 of the PoSH Act, the IC can only recommend to the employer that action be taken. It cannot recommend a specific punishment — whether against the respondent or against the complainant for an alleged false complaint.

This is a point that many employers get wrong. ICs often go beyond their mandate, proposing termination, suspension, or other penalties. The court made it clear: that is not the IC’s job. The IC investigates and recommends. The employer decides the punishment, based on the recommendation and after following principles of natural justice.

THE PLAY: Every Internal Committee must be constituted strictly as per Section 4 of the PoSH Act — with an external member, no subordinates of the respondent, and no power to recommend specific punishments. If your IC fails any of these tests, its findings are legally void.

What the Vishaka guidelines still demand

The court traced the legal foundation back to the landmark Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, where the Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment at workplaces. Those guidelines were meant to be followed until legislation was enacted. The PoSH Act was enacted in 2013. But the court noted that many institutions are still non-compliant — nearly 27 years after Vishaka.

The judgment observed that only 305 complaints were reported from 19,475 Internal Committees in Tamil Nadu. That number, the court said, suggests either “disproportionate spending” on ICs that do nothing, or massive underreporting of sexual harassment. Either way, it is a systemic failure.

The awareness gap

The court also flagged a deeper problem: many women employees believe that only rape constitutes sexual harassment. They are unaware that verbal abuse, double entendre, remarks, and gestures also qualify under Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act. This lack of awareness means that countless incidents go unreported, and countless women suffer in silence.

The court directed employers to conduct mandatory awareness programs. This is not optional. It is a positive obligation under the Act.

What the court ordered

The operative order in the three writ petitions is as follows:

• In WP(MD) 12601/2024, the impugned punishment order and the appellate rejection were quashed.
• In WP(MD) 13981/2024, the suspension had already been revoked; the court issued directions for systemic compliance.
• In WP(MD) 9747/2024, the court directed a proper IC inquiry.

But the broader directions are what matter for every employer in Tamil Nadu. The court directed:

• Systemic compliance with the PoSH Act, including proper constitution of ICs, framing of internal policies, and conduct of awareness programs.
• Prevention of secondary victimisation — no retaliatory action against complainants or their supporters.
• The State Government, Union Government, and Women’s Commissions to take measures for effective implementation of the PoSH Act.
• The State to consider framing rules under the PoSH Act, which it has not done despite the Central Rules being notified.

Why this matters for every employer

If you are an advocate advising a company, a CFO responsible for compliance, or a founder building a workplace culture, this judgment is a warning. The Madras High Court has made it clear that non-compliance with the PoSH Act is not a minor procedural lapse. It is a violation that can undo every action your IC takes. A finding of sexual harassment — or a finding of a false complaint — can be challenged and quashed if your IC was not properly constituted.

The court also flagged the absence of state rules in Tamil Nadu. That is a gap that needs to be filled. But even without state rules, the Central Rules and the Act itself impose clear obligations. Ignorance is no defence.

The bottom line: If your Internal Committee does not have an external member, if it is composed of subordinates of the respondent, or if it recommends specific punishments, its proceedings are legally void. And if you retaliate against a complainant or a supporter, you are not just violating the PoSH Act — you are inviting the court’s ire.

Three women walked into the Madras High Court with three separate stories. They walked out with a judgment that changes the rules for every workplace in Tamil Nadu. The question is: will employers listen?