Is it lack of awareness? Is it lack of trust? Fear of retaliation? Societal stigma? Fear of becoming fodder for gossip? What is the issue?
13 years since the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. More than a decade of efforts to build a safe and dignified workplace by maintaining privacy, non-disclosure, trust, and discretion. The POSH Act stresses upon redressing POSH complaints with utmost confidentiality and due care. Does the strict confidentiality that the Act stipulates allow the complainant to not reveal her identity to the IC?
What are Anonymous Complaints?
Anonymous complaints, in simple words, are the submission of allegations in the form of a formal complaint by the aggrieved person without revealing her/ his identity. These complaints create significant difficulty for the Internal Committee to adjudge and resolve the issue at hand.
Are Anonymous Complaints allowed?
In today’s workplaces, employees are increasingly encouraged to speak up about inappropriate behaviour. One common question that arises is: Can an anonymous complaint of sexual harassment be acted upon under the POSH law?
Anonymous complaints are not specifically addressed in the Act. Generally, due cognizance of anonymous complaints is not taken, but there is no general ban; yet the Act stresses on protecting the complainant’s right to privacy and mandates the entire POSH proceeding to be completely confidential. The respondent is placed in a prejudicial position as his right to a fair and reasonable hearing is being violated. If the respondent is not aware of the person complaining against them, the respondent won’t be able to defend himself effectively.
How the Respondent’s right is being violated:
The respondent is unaware of the identity of the complainant, making it difficult to understand the context or respond effectively.
There is no meaningful opportunity to defend, as the respondent cannot provide specific rebuttals or supporting evidence.
The respondent cannot challenge or test the allegations, since cross-examination (even indirectly) becomes impractical.
The inquiry may become one-sided or opaque, with reliance on unverified or incomplete information.
The Internal Committee (IC) may rely on unverified or incomplete information. This can lead to findings based on assumptions rather than tested evidence.
The Internal Committee (IC) is placed in a challenging position, as it must ensure a fair hearing in line with the principles of natural justice for the respondent, while also addressing genuine complaints and safeguarding the complainant’s right to privacy.
What will the IC do?
The POSH Act does not specifically address anonymous complaints and provides no mechanism for the Internal Committee (IC) to act on them, thereby creating a legal gap. However, Section 9 mandates that a written complaint by the aggrieved woman (or her representative, if she is unable) must be submitted within the prescribed timeline to initiate an inquiry, while Section 11 outlines the inquiry process.
The Act does insist on written complaints but not on Anonymous Complaints; this is where interpretations of the statute and judicial precedents provide clarity. While the Act does not directly deal with anonymity, it places strong emphasis on confidentiality. Under Section 16, the identity of the complainant, respondent, and witnesses, along with the details of the inquiry, must not be disclosed to the public or the media. This means that while the law safeguards identities from being disclosed to the public, it does not extend to permitting complete anonymity within the inquiry process itself.
The Supreme Court, M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, reinforces that natural justice is not optional, it is fundamental. The right to be heard, embodied in audi alteram partem, is not merely a procedural formality but a cornerstone of fairness. Courts have consistently held that any decision taken without adhering to these principles is vulnerable to being set aside.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court explained that the provisions of the POSH Act or the Rules do not prohibit in any manner cross-examination of a complainant or her witnesses during the inquiry. It was observed that the right of cross examination has to be read into the provisions of the POSH Act.
In the case of Thomas Antony vs State of Kerala, 2025 The Court observed that there is currently no structured mechanism under the POSH framework to anonymise a complainant during inquiry proceedings. Acknowledging the right to privacy as a fundamental right, it held that a complainant is entitled to have her identity and whereabouts protected from the public domain. However, the Court also made it clear that such anonymisation cannot come at the cost of fairness, it must not prejudice the respondent’s right to defend themselves effectively during the inquiry.
Legally sound ways to manage Anonymous Complaints:
Clearly define in policy that anonymous complaints cannot initiate formal inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Treat anonymous complaints as informational inputs or red flags, not as evidence
Provide safe and confidential reporting channels to encourage identified complaints
Assure non-retaliation and confidentiality to build trust and reduce fear of reporting
Conduct limited preliminary assessment where necessary, without initiating formal proceedings
Make efforts to encourage the complainant to come forward and file a formal complaint
Avoid disciplinary action based solely on anonymous complaints, ensuring fairness and natural justice
These decisions give us the conclusion that
In the delicate balance between protection and fairness, anonymity cannot come at the cost of justice. The court makes it clear while voices must be heard, they cannot be faceless when consequences are real. The POSH framework is not just about redressal, but about fair, transparent, and lawful inquiry. Anonymous complaints may raise alarms, but they cannot ring the final bell. Ultimately, justice under POSH must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done, by both sides, with clarity, credibility, and due process.
