Beyond “Aggrieved Woman”: Rethinking Workplace Harassment Law in India
A safe workplace is not merely a matter of good organizational culture but a legal right. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH”) emerged in the aftermath of the Vishakha Guidelines to protect women against sexual harassment at workplace and to institutionalize Internal Complaints Committees and Local Committees for redressal. In Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan (1997) the Supreme Court acknowledged that sexual harassment at workplace infringes a woman’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The Act therefore represents far more than a statutory obligation. It reflects India’s commitment to ensuring that women are able to participate in the workplace without fear of intimidation, humiliation, or abuse. It is rooted in the constitutional promise that every woman should be able to pursue her profession with dignity and equality.
Yet, the statute’s very title and wording also signal that it is not a gender-neutral workplace harassment law. Men, transgender individuals, and non-binary employees, who may also experience workplace sexual harassment, do not have access to the statutory complaint mechanism established under the POSH Act. The often-overlooked experience of male and other gender identities raises pressing questions about fairness, equality, and the universality of workplace protections.
The Text of the Law: “Aggrieved Woman” Only
Section 2(a) of the POSH Act defines an “Aggrieved woman” as a woman who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment at the workplace (or in the case of domestic work, in a dwelling place or house). Section 9 then provides that “any aggrieved woman” may make a complaint of sexual harassment to the Internal Committee or Local Committee within the prescribed time.
The absence of a provision for men as complainants is not an oversight; it is a deliberate legislative choice to focus the POSH framework on women. For decades, women encountered barriers that extended far beyond unequal pay or limited opportunities. Many of them experienced unwelcome physical advances, sexually colored remarks, coercion, and professional retaliation for resisting such behavior. These incidents often went unreported because of fear of losing employment, social stigma, or the absence of an effective complaint mechanism. Recognizing these realities, the POSH Act is an example of protective legislation rather than preferential treatment. It seeks to correct an existing imbalance by creating legal safeguards for a group that has traditionally required greater protection.
The Human Reality: Men as Silent Victims
In modern workplaces, harassment is not limited to any single gender. A male employee may face repeated sexual advances from a colleague, inappropriate physical contact from a superior, sexually explicit messages from a client, or harassment by a person of the same sex. Such experiences can have serious consequences, including anxiety, depression, loss of professional confidence, and damage to workplace relationships. Yet, unlike a female employee, a male victim cannot invoke the remedies available under the POSH Act.
The result is often silence. Instead of filing complaints, many male victims resign, avoid certain assignments, endure the conduct to protect their career, or seek informal resolutions that offer no real procedural safeguards.
This creates a noticeable gap in the legal framework. Two employees may experience similar forms of workplace harassment, but only one has access to the comprehensive statutory protections specifically designed to address such misconduct.
Is the POSH Act Gender-Specific Rather Than Gender-Neutral?
The Act is premised on a framework that primarily addresses sexual harassment against women. This raises an important question: does treating different groups differently always amount to discrimination, or can such distinctions sometimes be justified?
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. However, equality under the Constitution has never meant identical treatment in every circumstance. Indian constitutional jurisprudence recognizes that legislation may classify individuals differently, provided the classification is reasonable, based on an intelligible differentia, and bears a rational connection with the object of the law.
It’s important to recognize that the Act was created to tackle widespread harassment of women and to uphold constitutional and international commitments to gender equality and safe workplaces. Its design is a response to a documented pattern of harm faced by women, not an explicit attempt to deny remedies to men.
The more nuanced critique, therefore, is that the POSH framework is incomplete. In a society that increasingly recognizes diverse gender identities and experiences of harm, this incompleteness becomes harder to justify.
On this test, POSH’s focus on women would likely be upheld as a reasonable classification based on historical vulnerability, even as contemporary realities expose the limits of its gender‑specific design.
What Remedies Do Men Have Today?
Even though men are excluded from filing complaints under the POSH Act, they are not completely remediless, but their options are scattered and far less tailored than the POSH framework. Male Complainants typically rely on employer’s own internal policies or codes of conduct that are voluntarily drafted as gender-neutral, general disciplinary mechanisms under service rules, standing orders, or HR processes, and where applicable, criminal law provisions depending on the nature of the conduct.
The qualitative difference is that women have a dedicated statute mandating Internal Committees, prescribing timelines, confidentiality safeguards, conciliation options, and clear employer liabilities for non-compliance. Men, by contrast, depend on whatever internal or general routes happen to exist, which can vary significantly from one organisation to another and may lack the visibility and procedural structure of POSH.
Reform Proposals
The conversation should not end with identifying the limitations of the present law. A progressive legal system evolves with changing social realities, and the increasing recognition of male victims calls for constructive reform rather than criticism alone.
While expanding statutory protection to all employees, any reform must preserve the protections that the POSH Act was originally enacted to provide for women. The objective should be to broaden access to legal remedies without weakening the safeguards available to women. One possible legislative approach would be to amend the POSH Act by replacing the expression “aggrieved woman” with a gender-neutral term such as “aggrieved person.” Such an amendment would enable every employee, irrespective of gender, to seek protection through the same institutional mechanism while preserving the special safeguards that the Act currently provides for women.
In addition, there is a need to encourage reporting by male victims. Social stereotypes often discourage men from speaking about experiences of harassment because of fear of ridicule or disbelief. Creating awareness that harassment is unacceptable irrespective of the victim’s gender is essential for building genuinely safe workplaces.
Gender-Neutral Policies
India’s evolving labour policy and official advisories increasingly encourage employers to create inclusive, discrimination-free workplaces, including equal pay, non-discriminatory hiring and caregiving benefits for both men and women.
In response, many organisations have voluntarily adopted zero-tolerance policies on sexual harassment that are explicitly gender-neutral in their internal wording, even while formally complying with POSH’s women-focused statutory requirements. These policies typically state that the company will not tolerate sexual harassment by or against any employee, regardless of gender, and that internal complaint procedures are open to all.
This trend demonstrates that progressive employer practice and labour-compliance thinking are already moving towards gender-neutral protection at the workplace, even as the statutory framework still lags behind.
The National Commission for Men Bill, 2025
The introduction of the National Commission for Men Bill, 2025 as a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament reflects that issues concerning men’s welfare and legal protection are increasingly finding a place in legislative discourse. The bill proposes the establishment of a statutory National Commission for Men with defined powers, functions, and organisational structure, including State Commissions for Men.
According to explanatory sources, the proposed Commission is intended to address men’s welfare, rights, and issues such as mental health, social justice, and protection including concerns around false accusations and gender-balanced policy design. While the bill does not directly create a male-specific POSH framework, it signals a broader recognition that men too may be vulnerable and require institutional support.
Although the Bill does not propose amendments to the POSH Act, it contributes to the broader discussion on whether workplace harassment laws should eventually provide gender-neutral statutory remedies.
Conclusion: Dignity for All at Work
The POSH Act has been transformative in securing safer workplaces for women, buta its “aggrieved woman” framework leaves men and other genders without an equivalent statutory path to redress. In reality, sexual harassment violates the dignity of any victim, regardless of gender, and progressive employers as well as evolving labour policy are already moving toward zero-tolerance, gender-neutral protection. Ultimately, the objective of workplace harassment law should not be to determine which gender deserves dignity, but to ensure that every individual can work in an environment free from intimidation, abuse, and sexual harassment. An inclusive legal framework would strengthen, rather than weaken, the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and safe employment for all. Protecting men from workplace sexual harassment should not be viewed as diminishing the protections available to women; rather, an inclusive legal framework would reinforce the broader constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, and a safe working environment for every individual.
~Riya Dwivedi
