INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Preetha Soman, Madhur Khandelwal and Aishwarya Maria Manjooran, JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors 18th Floor SKAV 909 No 9/1
Residency Road Richmond Circle Bengaluru 560 025 Karnataka India
Tel: +91 80 4350 3600 Fax: +91 80 4350 3600 Email: bengaluru@jsalaw.com Web: www.jsalaw.com
From Compliance to Enforcement: Redefining Workplace Investigations in India Introduction The landscape of employer-led investigations in India has been the subject of judicial scrutiny, emphasising the need for streamlined and fair investigation pro - cesses. Courts have sent a clear message to employ - ers: “zero tolerance” for misconduct can only exist with “absolute adherence” to the principles of natural justice. From the Supreme Court’s mandate on nationwide PoSH compliance audits to the expansion of the “workplace” definition in the digital age, and with the onset of specific procedural requirements set out under the new Labour Codes, effective from 21 November 2025 (“Labour Codes”), this article analy - ses the key trends, developments and judicial pro - nouncements that have shaped the disciplinary inves - tigation landscape in India in 2025. The PoSH Act: a shift from “compliance” to “enforcement” Perhaps one of the most impactful orders the Indian judiciary delivered in 2025 was one that underscored the judiciary’s impatience with “mere paper compli - ance”. Courts are no longer satisfied with the mere existence of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the Local Complaints Committee constituted by private establishments and district authorities, respectively; they are now scrutinising the efficacy and constitution of these bodies.
Mandatory audits and penalties In a landmark move in August 2025, the Supreme Court of India, reiterating the principles in Aureliano Fernandes v State of Goa (Miscellaneous Applica - tion Diary No(s) 22553/2023 (decided on 12 August 2025)), ordered a district-wide survey across all states to verify actual compliance with the Sexual Harass - ment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”). This move originated from the Apex Court’s findings that compli - ance with the provisions of the PoSH Act was poorly undertaken by establishments throughout the country. The Court directed that non-compliance, specifically the failure to constitute ICCs, would attract not just monetary penalties but potential adverse regulatory actions, including the refusal of licence renewals. This has warranted the need for organisations to move beyond tick-box compliance to ensuring their ICCs are legally robust. This survey is currently underway, and the details so collected are to be submitted before the Apex Court for review, following which penalties may be imposed on organisations for lack of adherence to compliance directives set out under the statute. The directions from the Apex Court ensure a proactive approach to be taken by authorities and employers in maintaining suitable forums for the victims of sexual harassment at the workplace to file their complaints. Strict adherence to limitation periods While courts have historically been lenient in condon - ing delays for victims filing complaints of sexual har - assment, the Supreme Court took a stricter interpre -
215 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook