Confidentiality vs Transparency – Managing Sensitive Investigations Confidentiality is a statutory mandate under the POSH Act . Disclosure of identities, contents of complaint, witness details, or recommendations is prohibited. The objective is to protect dignity and prevent retaliation or workplace gossip. However, confidentiality does not mean secrecy without accountability. Employers must still ensure procedural transparency between parties sharing responses, evidence summaries, and findings. The balance lies in controlled disclosure within the inquiry framework, not public communication. Improper leaks can result in statutory penalties and reputational damage. Organizations must restrict access to inquiry records and sensitize leadership about non-interference. Simultaneously, leadership must communicate a culture of zero tolerance without discussing case specifics. Transparency about policy commitment, rather than individual cases, strengthens trust. Managing this balance is criti...
Not every case of sexual harassment at the workplace needs to culminate in a formal inquiry. The POSH Act , 2013 recognizes that in some situations, the aggrieved woman may prefer a less adversarial resolution. This is where conciliation plays a role offering an opportunity to resolve the complaint amicably, provided certain safeguards are respected. For the Internal Committee (IC), conciliation is a delicate process that requires sensitivity, neutrality, and strict adherence to law. 1. When Conciliation Can Be Considered Conciliation is an option available only at the request of the complainant. The IC cannot suggest or impose conciliation on its own. The request must be made before the start of the formal inquiry process. This ensures that the complainant’s autonomy and comfort remain at the center of decision-making. 2. Prohibited Basis of Conciliation The law expressly forbids monetary settlement as the foundation of conciliation. This is a critical safeguard against misuse and exp...