A workplace that upholds dignity and fairness begins with how it handles complaints of sexual harassment. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the PoSH Act, recognises this and mandates organisations with ten or more employees to establish an Internal Committee (IC). The IC’s purpose is to receive and inquire into complaints of sexual harassment, ensuring that every employee, irrespective of gender or position, has access to a safe and just work environment.
The Internal Committee plays a critical role, empowered with the same authority as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This means that the IC can summon witnesses, call for documents, and make recommendations based on its inquiry findings. However, with great authority comes great responsibility. The credibility of the IC, and the faith employees place in the process, depends heavily on the committee’s ability to function impartially and uphold the principles of natural justice.
The PoSH Act makes it clear that both the complainant and the respondent must be given an equal opportunity to be heard. Any inquiry that is influenced by bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest defeats the very intent of the law. Moreover, bias, whether conscious or unconscious, not only weakens the internal redressal process but also exposes the organisation to serious legal and reputational risks.
Bias and conflict of interest can manifest in many ways during an inquiry. It may appear as subtle favouritism toward one party, preconceived notions about what constitutes harassment, or misplaced assumptions about how a “real” victim or perpetrator should behave. To prevent such challenges, organisations must act proactively, long before a case is reported, to ensure that their Internal Committee and inquiry processes are free from prejudice.
In this two-part series, we will explore how an Internal Committee can avoid bias and conflict of interest at different stages of the redressal process. Part One focuses on the formation of a bias-free Internal Committee and how members can recognise and manage their unconscious biases.
Forming a bias-free internal committee
The foundation of a fair inquiry begins with how the Internal Committee is formed. While the law requires every organisation with ten or more employees to constitute an IC, the selection of members should go beyond mere compliance. Care must be taken to include individuals who possess a clear understanding of workplace dynamics, gender sensitivity, and the nuances of sexual harassment.
The committee should represent diverse perspectives and include members who can approach each case with empathy and objectivity. The appointment of an external member, preferably someone experienced in law, women’s rights, or workplace issues—is particularly important. This external voice not only strengthens the IC’s credibility but also helps maintain neutrality and prevent internal politics or reporting hierarchies from influencing decisions.
To know more about forming a bias-free Internal Committee, read here.
Avoiding bias as internal committee members
Even after the IC is constituted, the true test lies in how its members conduct themselves during inquiries. Effective training and sensitisation are vital to prepare members to handle complex cases involving sensitive emotions, power dynamics, and sometimes incomplete information.
During training sessions, members should discuss key concepts such as bias, conflict of interest, natural justice, and procedural fairness. These discussions help members understand not just what to do, but why it matters. For instance, ensuring both parties are given equal opportunities to present their case and maintaining strict confidentiality at every stage are cornerstones of a fair process.
Unconscious biases, those subtle, automatic judgments we make based on stereotypes or personal experience, can be particularly challenging. They can shape our perception of a complainant’s credibility or a respondent’s intent without us even realising it. Therefore, IC members must make a conscious effort to reflect on their own biases and take corrective measures to prevent them from influencing their decisions.
A powerful example of this is the “perfect victim” myth, the assumption that survivors of sexual harassment always appear visibly distressed, report incidents immediately, and have flawless recollection of events. When a complainant does not fit this imagined mould—perhaps because she is confident, composed, or took time to come forward- it may lead to doubts about her credibility. Similarly, if the respondent is well-liked or high-performing, members might unconsciously hesitate to believe allegations against him. Recognising and challenging such patterns of thought is key to ensuring fairness.
Regular refresher sessions, open discussions, and case-based learning can help IC members stay alert to these biases and continuously strengthen their inquiry approach. Documentation of every step, from the receipt of the complaint to the final recommendation, also helps maintain transparency and reduces the scope for subjective interpretation.
Looking ahead
Bias and conflict of interest can quietly erode the fairness of an inquiry, even when all procedures appear to be followed correctly. Building a culture of awareness, reflection, and accountability within the Internal Committee is essential for any organisation that truly values dignity at work.
While Part One explored preventive measures, forming a fair IC and developing bias awareness, Part Two will focus on identifying and managing conflicts of interest that can arise during specific cases. For example, what happens if the respondent is in a senior position or reports directly to an IC member? How should the committee respond if an external member has previously worked with one of the parties? These real-world challenges require thoughtful, lawful, and transparent approaches.
A bias-free inquiry is not just a legal requirement; it is a moral and cultural commitment to fairness. By investing in training, diverse representation, and consistent reflection, organisations can uphold both the spirit and the letter of the PoSH Act.
Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc to know more.