Ch. IV · §11
Chapter IV
Complaint
Section
Chapter IV · Complaint
Section 11
Inquiry into complaint
Temporary structural and explanatory content only; it is not a verbatim reproduction. Complete statutory text and legal commentary will be integrated after separate legal verification.
Plain Language
If the respondent is an employee, the committee must conduct a formal inquiry. The inquiry follows applicable service rules first; if none exist, it follows the prescribed procedure.
If the respondent is not an employee, the committee forwards the complaint to the police within seven days for registration under the Indian Penal Code.
During the inquiry, the committee has civil-court-style powers: it can summon witnesses, examine them on oath, and require document production.
The inquiry must be completed within ninety days from the date it commenced. This is a hard outer timeline, though not a penalty deadline — the committee must use best efforts to meet it.
Why It Matters
The ninety-day timeline creates urgency and prevents inquiries from dragging on indefinitely. Delays erode trust and can prejudice both parties.
The civil-court powers give the committee teeth — it can compel attendance and evidence, not just request cooperation.
The distinction between employee respondents (inquiry) and non-employee respondents (police referral) is jurisdictional. Getting it wrong can invalidate the process.
The service-rules-first approach means employers with existing disciplinary procedures must integrate the POSH inquiry into those procedures.
Practical Example
Scenario: An IC begins an inquiry into a complaint. The respondent refuses to attend hearings and refuses to produce documents.
Outcome: The IC has civil-court-style powers under Section 11(3). It can summon the respondent and enforce attendance, and require document production. Non-compliance can be treated as obstruction.
Scenario: A complaint is filed against a client who sexually harassed an employee at the client's premises during a work visit.
Outcome: The client is not an employee. If a prima facie case exists, the committee must forward the complaint to the police within seven days for registration under IPC Section 509 or other relevant provisions.
Scenario: An IC has been conducting an inquiry for 100 days without completing it.
Outcome: The ninety-day timeline has been exceeded. While the inquiry is not automatically invalid, the delay must be documented with reasons. The employer should facilitate completion and the parties may challenge unreasonable delay.
Who Must Act
ic member
- Conduct the inquiry in accordance with applicable service rules or the prescribed procedure.
- Use civil-court-style powers responsibly: summon witnesses, examine on oath, require document production.
- Complete the inquiry within ninety days from commencement.
- Forward complaints against non-employees to the police within seven days if a prima facie case exists.
employer
- Make witnesses, records, and attendance available so the committee can meet the ninety-day window.
- Integrate POSH inquiry procedures with existing service rules and disciplinary processes.
- Do not obstruct or delay the inquiry process.
employee
- Understand that you are entitled to a formal inquiry, not an informal managerial decision.
- Cooperate with the inquiry process, including attending hearings and producing relevant documents.
Compliance
Inquire into the complaint in accordance with service rules or prescribed procedure
Actor: IC / LC · Rule: Section 11(1)
Forward complaints against non-employees to the police within seven days
Actor: IC / LC · Rule: Section 11(2)
Complete the inquiry within ninety days from commencement
Actor: IC / LC · Rule: Section 11(4)
Timelines
Inquiry completion: 90 days
The inquiry must be completed within ninety days from the date on which the inquiry was commenced.
Police forwarding for non-employee respondent: 7 days
Where the respondent is not an employee and a prima facie case exists, the complaint must be forwarded to the police within seven days.
Common Mistakes
Treating the ninety-day timeline as merely directory — while there is no automatic penalty for delay, unreasonable delay can be challenged and undermines credibility.
Not using civil-court-style powers when the respondent or witnesses are uncooperative — the committee has the tools and should use them.
Conducting an internal inquiry for a non-employee respondent instead of forwarding to the police — the jurisdictional distinction is mandatory.
Starting the ninety-day clock from the date of complaint rather than the date the inquiry was commenced.
Failing to follow service rules where they exist — the prescribed procedure is the fallback, not the default.
Source & Status
This page contains temporary structural and explanatory content, not a verbatim reproduction of the Act.
Source: Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India
Publication status: Temporary content pending separate legal verification