PoSH Act Investigations India 2025: Balancing Impact and Intent in Sexual Harassment Cases
A Moment That Lingers
Vaishali sat at her desk, reviewing reports, when Arjun, her manager, called her into his office.
“That dress looks really nice on you. You should wear it more often,” he said, leaning casually, observing her reaction.
Vaishali smiled politely, but a knot of unease settled in her chest. It wasn’t the first time. Small, fleeting comments had begun to accumulate into something heavier.
Later, when interviewed before the Internal Committee (IC), Arjun insisted: “I didn’t mean anything by it. I was just joking. I was being friendly.”
Two accounts. Both seemingly honest. Both carrying their own truth.
And yet, the IC faced a critical question: what matters more—the intention behind the behavior or how it was experienced?
What the Law and Courts Say
When workplace sexual harassment comes to light, intent is often the first defense: “I didn’t mean it that way.” But the PoSH Act, 2013, and India’s courts are clear—it’s not the intent, but the impact that counts.
Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act defines sexual harassment as any one or more unwelcome acts or behavior of a sexual nature, including physical contact or advances, demands for sexual favors, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography, or any other verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct.
Section 3(2) further highlights that the conduct’s effect—whether it creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive environment—matters most.
In other words, the law asks: was the conduct unwelcome and did it make the complainant uncomfortable, regardless of what the accused intended?
Judicial precedent powerfully echoes this principle.
The Supreme Court first set this tone in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, making it clear that even a gesture or comment—if unwelcome—counts, regardless of whether physical contact occurred. Years later, in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, the Court sharpened the message: organizations must build systems that prioritize the complainant’s experience (the impact) and ensure a non-hostile workplace.
This principle has only grown stronger. Most recently, in HCL Technologies Ltd. v. N. Parsarathy, the court reaffirmed that it is the complainant’s feelings that carry weight. The workplace standard of decency, it held, is defined by how conduct is received—not by how casually it may have been delivered.
Taken together, these rulings form a steady drumbeat: impact outweighs intent.
In PoSH matters, the focus is squarely on the impact—ensuring that dignity, safety, and respect are always protected over subjective explanations or cultural justifications.
Civil vs. Criminal: Why Impact Matters More
Here’s where the distinction becomes important.
- PoSH as Civil Law
The PoSH Act is fundamentally civil in nature. Its primary purpose is preventive and remedial—protecting dignity, ensuring safety, and enabling redress within the organization. Neither criminal intent nor punitive sanctions are central to its operation. In this civil framework, the IC assesses whether conduct created discomfort or hostility in the workplace. Thus, the experience and impact on the complainant are decisive. The standard applied is the “preponderance of probability,” meaning that the IC decides based on which version of events is more probable—often described as the 51% probability principle.
- Criminal Law Standards
By contrast, criminal liability in India is now adjudicated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In criminal law, the investigating authorities and courts must establish “mens rea”—the intent behind the alleged offence—such as intent to harass, outrage modesty, or insult. The standard of proof is much higher: guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, a much stricter threshold than the civil standard.
This distinction explains why, in PoSH proceedings, “I didn’t mean it” cannot undo the harm—civil law protects experience and relies on probability; criminal law prosecutes intent and demands certainty.
Summary Table
| Principle | Civil (PoSH) | Criminal (BNS) |
| Standard of Proof | Preponderance of probability (51% probability) | Beyond Reasonable Doubt |
| Focus | Impact, Experience of Victim | Intent, Guilt of Offender |
| Outcome | Remedial, Preventive, Compensation | Penal: Imprisonment, Fine |
| Authority | Internal Committee (IC)/Civil Courts | Police, Criminal Courts |
| Statute | PoSH Act, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) |
Civil law protects experience; criminal law prosecutes intent. Under the PoSH law, impact matters—under BNS, intent is the key.
Navigating PoSH Investigations
PoSH investigations require balancing facts with experience.
For IC members, the takeaway is clear: assessing the impact on the complainant is essential. While intent is relevant for context, it does not override the effect the behavior had—whether it caused discomfort, intimidation, or hostility.
By grounding investigations in this legal framework, organizations ensure compliance while cultivating workplaces where respect and safety are genuinely felt, not just promised.
Key principles for evaluating complaints include:
1. Prioritize the complainant’s voice
Respondents may say things like “I was joking” or “I meant no harm,” but the IC must focus on the complainant’s lived experience, paying close attention to pauses, hesitations, and emotions that reveal discomfort.
2. Spot cumulative patterns
Repeated remarks or conduct build a pattern of impact. Harassment is defined by the discomfort or fear created, not by the accused’s intention.
3. Weigh context and power dynamics
Workplace hierarchy, authority imbalances, and cultural norms shape how behavior is perceived. Intent alone cannot explain or excuse these dynamics; understanding context is essential to assessing impact.
4. Apply the right standard of proof
In PoSH investigations, the test is not “Can we prove this beyond doubt?“—that belongs to criminal trials. Instead, ICs should ask: “Is it more likely than not that the incident occurred?” Even a 51% likelihood tilts the balance.
This is consistent with the Uttarakhand High Court’s ruling in Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs Union of India & Ors, which emphasized that workplace sexual harassment cases follow a “preponderance of probabilities” standard, focusing on the balance of likelihood rather than absolute certainty.
This civil standard matters—it allows swift, proportionate action without demanding criminal-level proof.
Beyond the Rules: Why It Matters
Harassment isn’t about what someone intended—it’s about the reality of how their actions were felt. A single word, a gesture, a glance can ripple across a team, shaping culture long before policies are invoked.
When organizations focus on impact first, they send a clear signal: every person’s experience matters, and silence or discomfort won’t be ignored. At the same time, acknowledging intent ensures fairness and keeps the process credible.
The true measure of a workplace isn’t how often incidents are reported—it’s how seriously the organization listens, reflects, and adapts. When investigation frameworks balance empathy, insight, and rigor, they do more than resolve complaints—they build trust, reinforce respect, and transform culture from within.
Because dignity at work is not about what was meant—it’s about how it was felt.