Although the PoSH Act was enacted to protect employees from sexual harassment and uphold dignity at work, concerns around its potential misuse - whether through malicious complaints, interpersonal vendettas, or strategic allegations in performance disputes , as surface in organisational contexts. It is important to recognise that statistically, false complaints form a very small minority, yet even isolated misuse can erode trust in the redressal system and create hesitation around reporting genuine harassment. Therefore, organisations must adopt balanced, legally compliant, and psychologically informed best practices that both safeguard complainants and protect respondents from unfair or malicious accusations.
One of the strongest safeguards against misuse is the constitution of a trained, independent, and unbiased Internal Committee. When the IC is well-versed in legal procedure, trauma-informed interviewing, power dynamics, and gender sensitivity, it is far less likely to be swayed by emotional narratives, group pressure, or organisational politics. A competent IC relies on evidence, corroboration, and procedural fairness rather than assumptions, ensuring that each complaint is examined objectively. Regular annual refresher training for IC members, especially on differentiating discomfort from harassment, distinguishing conflict from misconduct, and identifying fabricated or exaggerated accounts, helps build the Committee’s confidence and precision.
Clear, well-drafted organisational policies also help curb misuse. When employees are educated about what constitutes sexual harassment under Section 2(n) and what does not, the chances of misinterpreting normal workplace feedback or interpersonal disagreements as harassment reduce considerably. Regular awareness programmes, using case studies, role plays, and anonymised examples, guide employees in differentiating harassment from performance management, conflict, or personality clashes. In workplaces where I have conducted training, this clarity itself has significantly reduced frivolous or emotion-driven complaints, as people understand when PoSH applies and when it doesn’t.
A transparent and rigorous documentation process acts as a practical deterrent to false claims. When employees know that the IC will examine emails, call logs, CCTV footage where available, witness statements, past behaviour patterns, and context, the incentive for filing a malicious complaint decreases. Psychological research shows that individuals are less likely to misuse systems that rely on structured inquiry, consistent timelines, and clear reasoning behind decisions. Moreover, ensuring both parties have the right to submit evidence, produce witnesses, and receive updates on the inquiry fosters trust in due process rather than personal influence.
Maintaining strict confidentiality is another critical best practice. Misuse often arises or escalates because of external pressures, social influence, or organisational gossip. When ICs strictly uphold confidentiality, not just for the complainant and respondent but for witnesses as well, it prevents stigma, fear, and attempts to manipulate the process. Confidentiality also protects individuals from reputational harm in cases where complaints cannot be substantiated or are found to be malicious.
Many organisations also strengthen the process by offering a mediation option for cases where the complainant explicitly prefers it, provided no quid-pro-quo or severe harassment is involved. Mediation, conducted by trained facilitators rather than by untrained managers, helps resolve interpersonal misunderstandings that may otherwise escalate into formal complaints. It is essential, however, that mediation never becomes a replacement for inquiry in serious cases, nor is it forced upon the parties; voluntariness is key.
In addition, the IC must be empowered to act firmly against misuse when it is proven. The Act itself provides for action under Section 14 against complainants who knowingly file false or malicious complaints. While this must be applied sparingly and only when there is clear evidence of malintent : and never merely because a complaint is unsubstantiated, its responsible application deters deliberate misuse. A well-reasoned final report, outlining how evidence contradicted the complaint, helps maintain fairness and protect the organisation from claims of bias.
Preventing misuse also requires a cultural approach. When workplaces foster psychological safety, respect, open communication, and conflict resolution skills, employees are less likely to weaponise PoSH mechanisms. In several organisations where I have delivered training, I noticed that teams with high trust and emotional intelligence seldom misuse formal mechanisms; instead, they resolve interpersonal discomfort early through communication.
Teaching employees to address minor conflicts respectfully before they escalate reduces the chances of grievances taking the form of harassment allegations later.
Finally, organisations should invest in periodic audits by external PoSH experts. External audits review past cases, process gaps, the quality of IC reports, and any patterns that may indicate misuse or mishandling. These audits keep the system honest, reduce the IC’s susceptibility to internal politics, and give employees confidence that the mechanism is fair.
In conclusion, curbing misuse of the PoSH law is not about restricting complainants, but about strengthening the integrity of the inquiry process so that both complainants and respondents are protected. Misuse is best prevented not through fear or punitive measures but through clarity, training, confidentiality, documentation, and a workplace culture that values accountability and respect. When the system is robust, transparent, and psychologically safe, misuse naturally reduces, and genuine complaints receive the justice they deserve.