A persistent point of concern for leadership teams and IC members alike is the potential misuse of the POSH framework. Section 14 of the POSH Act addresses this by detailing provisions for false or malicious complaints, as well as forged evidence. However, applying Section 14 requires a sharp, uncompromising distinction between a malicious complaint and an unsubstantiated complaint. An unsubstantiated complaint occurs when the IC completes its inquiry and concludes that the evidence provided does not cross the threshold of probability required to prove the allegation. Inability to prove a claim does not automatically mean the claim was false. Memory gaps, lack of third-party corroboration, or evidentiary ambiguities often result in an unsubstantiated finding without any dishonest intent by the complainant. A malicious complaint , on the other hand, requires affirmative proof of bad faith and conscious deception. To recommend action under Section 14, the IC must establish ...
What "In Such Manner as May Be Prescribed" Actually Means One of the most litigated phrases within the POSH Act, 2013 is found in Section 13(3)(i), which directs employers to act upon the recommendations of the IC "in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent." For years, defense counsels have aggressively interpreted this phrase as a statutory mandate to trigger a completely fresh, separate disciplinary inquiry from scratch under standard corporate service codes. The Bombay High Court’s analysis in the Arun A. Iyer judgment has provided a definitive clarification, cutting through this deliberate misinterpretation. The Division Bench clarified that the reference to service rules in Section 13(3)(i) refers strictly to the mechanism and scale of executing the penalty, not to the rebuilding of the inquiry process itself. In other words, the service rules are consulted to determine what constitutes a "major penalty" vers...