The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued new directions to all states and union territories to make sure the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 is followed across the country. The court ordered that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) be set up in all government departments and organisations to handle cases of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Timeline for establishing local complaints committees

Justices B. V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh stressed the importance of making sure the POSH Act is followed the same way across the country. The court instructed that each district appoint an officer by December 31, 2024, to create a local complaints committee by January 31, 2025. The court also asked for nodal officers to be appointed at the taluka level to supervise the law's implementation.

The court also asked district authorities, like deputy commissioners and district magistrates, to check both public and private organisations to make sure they are following the POSH Act. They will survey these organisations to see if they have set up Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) as required by the law and then report their findings.

Court expresses concern over non-compliance

The Supreme Court expressed its concern over "serious lapses" in implementing the POSH Act, despite it being in place for a long time. The bench called it a "sorry state of affairs," stating that it reflected poorly on state functionaries, public authorities, and private organisations.

The court granted a deadline of March 31, 2025, for compliance with its directives, with chief secretaries overseeing the implementation process.

Case relating to Goa University

The court's instructions were given after Aureliano Fernandes, a former head of department at Goa University, filed a petition. He challenged the Bombay High Court's decision to remove him from his position because of sexual harassment allegations. The Supreme Court found mistakes in how the inquiry was conducted and cancelled the high court's decision, saying that the principles of fairness were not followed.