Skip to content
Nyaya Vidhiन्याय विधि · Indian Law, Lucid
POSH Act·Chapter I·Preliminary

Prevention of sexual harassment

Verbatim from the Act

(1) No woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any workplace.

(2) The following circumstances, among other circumstances, if it occurs, or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment:—

(i) implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or

(ii) implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or

(iii) implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or

(iv) interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or

(v) humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.

Section 3, POSH Act 2013

In plain English

What this section actually means

Section 3 is the substantive prohibition. Sub-section (1) is the rule: no woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any workplace. This is not merely directory; it founds the cause of action under Section 9 and the duty under Section 19.

Sub-section (2) lists five non-exhaustive 'circumstances' that, when present, may turn unwelcome conduct into sexual harassment under Section 2(n). The first three are classic quid-pro-quo harassment (preferential treatment, detrimental treatment, threat about future employment). The last two are hostile-environment harassment (interference with work / intimidating-offensive-hostile environment, humiliating treatment affecting health or safety).

The word 'circumstances among other circumstances' makes the list non-exhaustive. So an Internal Committee can find harassment in scenarios that don't fit any of the five categories — provided the basic Section 2(n) act is established.

Visual

See how it flows

Old vs new

Quid-pro-quo vs. hostile environment under Section 3(2)

Both flavours are caught — Section 3(2)(i)-(iii) for quid-pro-quo, (iv)-(v) for hostile environment.

Type
Section 3(2) clauses
  • Quid-pro-quo: promise of preferential treatment
    (i)
  • Quid-pro-quo: threat of detrimental treatment
    (ii)
  • Quid-pro-quo: threat about employment status
    (iii)
  • Hostile environment: interference / hostility
    (iv)
  • Hostile environment: humiliation, health / safety
    (v)

Real life

What this looks like in real life

Real-life scenario

Manager promises a promotion in exchange for a 'private dinner'

Setup. A manager tells a junior employee that her annual promotion depends on attending a 'private dinner' at his apartment.

What the law does. Section 3(2)(i) — implied promise of preferential treatment in employment. Combined with Section 2(n)(ii) (demand for sexual favours), this is a quid-pro-quo case under Section 3. The Internal Committee proceeds to inquiry under Section 11.

Applies under Section 3(2)(i) read with Section 2(n)(ii)
Real-life scenario

Sexually-coloured remarks in a team WhatsApp group

Setup. A senior team member regularly posts sexually-coloured remarks in the team's WhatsApp group, making the woman team member uncomfortable.

What the law does. Section 2(n)(iii) — sexually coloured remarks. Combined with Section 3(2)(iv) — interference with work and creating a hostile work environment. The Internal Committee can take cognizance even though the harassment occurred in a virtual / digital space, because the WhatsApp group is a 'workplace' extension under Section 2(o)(v).

Applies under Section 3(2)(iv) read with Section 2(n)(iii) and 2(o)(v)

Landmark cases

How the courts have read this

  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

    Supreme Court of India · 1997 · (1997) 6 SCC 241

    Pre-statutory foundation. The Court laid down binding guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace, drawing on CEDAW. Sections 2(n) and 3 of the 2013 Act substantially codify and expand those guidelines.

  • Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra

    Supreme Court of India · 1999 · (1999) 1 SCC 759

    Even an attempt at physical contact, however brief, can amount to sexual harassment. The conduct need not be successful; the unwelcomeness and the intent matter.

  • Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India

    Supreme Court of India · 2013 · (2013) 1 SCC 297

    The pre-Act decision that prompted Parliament to legislate within months — clarified that Vishaka guidelines bind every workplace, public and private, and that absence of mechanism is no defence.

Frequently asked

Questions about Section 3

Open this section in the source PDF

Sexual Harassment at Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013.pdf

Page 5 · opens in new tab