Kerala HC on Anonymous PoSH Complaints: A Wake-Up Call for Internal Committees

May 21, 2025
Prevention of Sexual Harassment
5 min read
A spotlighted empty office chair in a dim corporate setting, with shadowy human figures in the background and legal elements like a gavel and file folders, symbolizing anonymous sexual harassment complaints and internal committee investigations.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas Antony vs State of Kerala & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 27175 of 2023 addressed a critical procedural question under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act):
Can an Internal Committee (IC) act on an anonymous sexual harassment complaint?

The Court answered in the affirmative—holding that if the information discloses a prima facie case, an IC can, and sometimes must, initiate a preliminary assessment even if the complaint is unsigned or the complainant is unidentified.

The intent behind the ruling is clear: to ensure that no potentially serious complaint is disregarded solely on the basis of anonymity. In highly structured and hierarchical workplaces such as BPOs, MNCs, or government departments, anonymous reporting often feels like the only safe option for some employees.

However, at Rainmaker, we believe this development warrants closer scrutiny—not out of disregard for the complainant or the importance of survivor protection, but because of the broader legal and procedural implications it carries. These deserve thoughtful attention.

Case Summary

The Petitioner challenged an inquiry initiated by the Kerala Water Authority’s Internal Committee based on an unsigned complaint regarding inappropriate behavior towards women at the workplace. The argument was simple: the complaint was anonymous and hence, void under the PoSH Act.

The High Court disagreed.

Justice Devan Ramachandran emphasized that Section 9 of the PoSH Act allows a woman “aggrieved” to make a complaint, and while this generally means a signed, written and identifiable complaint, the absence of a name or signature does not, in itself, invalidate the substance of the grievance—especially if it suggests a serious offence.

The Court ruled that an IC is empowered and, in some cases, obligated to act on anonymous complaints if the information prima facie indicates harassment and the workplace facts support further inquiry. Dismissing such complaints purely for being unsigned would go against the purpose of the PoSH Act.

Key Takeaways for Employers and ICs

  1. Substance Over Form: Even if a complaint is unsigned or anonymous, if it raises concerns that suggest sexual harassment, the IC must take it seriously.
  2. Preliminary Assessment is Crucial: The IC should conduct a limited fact-finding exercise to determine whether there’s a prima facie case warranting full inquiry.
  3. No Baseless Persecution: The Court cautioned against treating every anonymous tip as grounds for full inquiry. A balance must be struck between protecting reputations and ensuring safe workplaces.
  4. Documentation Matters: ICs should meticulously document their rationale for proceeding (or not) with anonymous complaints, especially if it escalates into disciplinary action.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

At the core of any fair legal process are the three pillars of natural justice:

  1. Audi alteram partem (the right to be heard)
  2. Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause)
  3. Speaking orders / Reasoned decision – Decisions must be reasoned and communicated

Permitting an anonymous complaint can effectively strip the respondent of a meaningful opportunity to respond:

  • How does an accused defend against a vague or unspecified complaint without knowing who raised it or what precise behavior caused offence?
  • How can the IC assess the aggrieved status of the complainant, as required under Section 9 of the PoSH Act, without a verifiable identity?

This creates a dangerous precedent of one-sided proceedings, where the balance of fairness tilts significantly against the accused.

PoSH Act Requires an Identifiable Complainant

The PoSH Act is explicit: only an “aggrieved woman” can file a complaint under Section 9. The term “aggrieved woman” is defined in Section 2(a), and the entire architecture of the Act revolves around her identity, workplace relationship, and specific grievance.

  • Nowhere does the Act contemplate suo motu cognizance by the IC based on anonymous complaints.
  • Even the mechanism for third-party complaints (via friends, relatives, or coworkers) under Rule 6 of the PoSH Rules presumes a real and identifiable complainant who is unable to file the complaint herself due to physical or mental incapacity.

To interpret “complaint” to include unsigned, unverifiable notes stretches the boundaries of purposive interpretation and risks departing from the intent of the law.

Opens the Door to Misuse

The Judgement  downplays the serious risk of misuse:

  • In hierarchical workplaces, anonymous complaints can be weaponized against supervisors or colleagues without accountability.
  • The absence of a known complainant prevents the IC from verifying motive, context, or truthfulness—a cornerstone of any fair inquiry.
  • If the IC acts on baseless anonymous tips, it may result in reputational damage, mental distress, and potential legal action for defamation or wrongful prosecution.

The Court’s call for “preliminary assessment” may sound balanced, but without identity or context, even a prima facie review becomes speculative.

Exhausting Existing Remedies

If the concern is fear of retaliation, the PoSH Act already provides safeguards:

  • Section 16 prohibits disclosure of the complainant’s identity.
  • IC proceedings are confidential by law.
  • Whistleblower mechanisms and anonymous tip lines can be used for internal alerts, but not as a basis for initiating formal PoSH inquiries.

Blurring this boundary between alert mechanisms and formal legal complaints dilutes both due process and credibility of the IC framework.

Implications for Corporate India

This ruling bridges a key gap: in many organizations, survivors fear retaliation or reputational damage and hence choose to remain anonymous. If ICs rigidly refuse to entertain such complaints, they risk enabling a culture of silence.

On the other hand, the judgment does not adequately emphasize that due process is non-negotiable. Any inquiry must begin with a fair and objective assessment of the substance of the complaint—not merely its format. If organizations act without this balance, they risk inviting further litigation, appeals, and reputational harm.

Parting Thoughts: Judicial Overreach or Legislative Bypass?

The Kerala High Court’s ruling is significant—it asks us to reconsider whether form can be overlooked for substance in workplace justice. While the Kerala HC judgment may stem from a protective instinct, interpreting the PoSH Act to include anonymous complainants rewrites statutory language and upends basic legal safeguards.

But as an organisation that has worked closely with legal experts and supported the practical implementation of the Law across diverse workplaces, we believe that natural justice and legislative intent cannot be sidestepped in the process. If change is needed, it must come through legislative amendment—not through judicial reinterpretation.

Natural justice is not an inconvenience to be set aside for expedience—it is the cornerstone of fairness, for both the complainant and the respondent. Especially in matters that affect both safety and reputation, process is not secondary to outcomes—it is integral to them.

Contact Us