ICCs and LCs are indulging in self-sabotage to thwart sexual harassment complaints

In the present day, where the business of obtaining and issuing "PoSH Practitioner" certifications has become an entire industry by itself, one would think that this practice would make the Internal Complaints Committees of various organisations, a safe space for women. The sometimes 3 days - long "vigorous" certification course which also makes one a ‘qualified’ Diversity Equity & Inclusion (DEI) expert on the side, probably misses the most important objective of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act"), i.e., the redressal of sexual harassment complaints. However, when it comes to the redressal of sexual harassment complaints, the methods adopted by those persons regarded as pioneers in the field of women’s rights, who sometimes have upwards of 20 years experience on a 10 year old legislation, and, the methods adopted by self-declared PoSH specialists are one and the same, that is, they actively disenfranchise the complainants with their uninformed and non - updated knowledge of the 2013 Act.

'Merely because one is a woman, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is immediately a better advocate for victims who are women' - is a dialogue we are not yet ready for vis-a-vis making workplaces safe and inclusive. In any institution or an organisation, having a woman lawyer or a woman external member unfortunately does not guarantee an ideal ICC or a Local Committee (LC) which focuses on the efficient redressal of complaints, safe reintegration into work post the trauma, confidentiality and providing the victim with available options during the process. Most training sessions focus on how men should strive to make their workplaces a safe space for their women colleagues and fail to address the internalised misogyny and sexism of other women. While this may not seem important at first glance, this becomes a significant topic to address due to the sheer number of old-school exclusionary feminists who believe that the hallmark of true strength is to endure and endure, or better yet, kick their butts! There are also those who normalise hostile work environments towards women as being the norm and that a good fight against sexism toughens one’s character. Others also believe that the current generation of women are attention-seekers who throw fits for even a minor inconvenience, whereas an older woman in their field might have endured, much like a saint on penance.

Local Committee is not for women like YOU

This anecdote has multiple layers to unpack. A woman working in a high-paying unorganised sector undergoes sexual harassment at her workplace. Due to the absence of an ICC at her workplace, she approaches the LC set up under the 2013 Act and she is informed that the LC is not prima facie convinced that it is bound to take up her complaint. The woman-victim questions the LC’s disinclination to take up her complaint. The concerned officer informs the complainant that the LC is not set up to address complaints from "women like her".

Section 9 of the 2013 Act does not distinguish any further categories under ‘unorganised sector’ with regard to who can approach the LC. The section states that in the absence of an Internal Complaints Committee at one's workplace, they can approach the Local Committee. Section 2(o) of the 2013 Act defines what constitutes a workplace and 2(p) defines unorganised sector as follows:

“(p) “unorganised sector” in relation to a workplace means an enterprise owned by individuals or self-employed workers and engaged in the production or sale of goods or providing service of any kind whatsoever, and where the enterprise employs workers, the number of such workers is less than ten.”

A singer visiting a studio during the course of her contract, a student of dance learning from a dance guru at a private dance school, a receptionist at a local B&B, an intern at a firm, a DJ at a bar, a make-up artist at a web series shooting spot - all of them can approach the LC. In arguendo, even if the LC does not recognise such persons as belonging to the unorganised sector, Section 9 of the 2013 Act empowers the LC to take up such complaints due to the absence of an ICC in their respective workplaces irrespective of the number of employees. This regulatory gap is caused not by a poor framing of the law, but due to an intentional misreading and planned obsolescence by the LC. This evasion of its duties by the LC comes at a cost to these women who are left stranded and instead left with no other alternative than to approach the Police in case of "serious harassments", and simply let bygones be bygones in other cases of "everyday harassments" (because patriarchy and rape culture dictates certain instances of violations as serious and others as insignificant).

It is ‘just’ a case of hostile work environment due to your gender; ICC is not for YOU

There have been cases of ICCs attempting to scuttle complaints by resorting to intimidating the complainants by asking them to sign papers at a pre - inquiry meeting, pressuring them to withdraw the complaint, and videotaping the entire proceedings. While some of these practices are not explicitly prohibited by the 2013 Act or its Rules, the very atmosphere in which a complainant is placed is one designed to make her forfeit her case. Further, it is no secret that the ICCs of various organisations actively refrain from registering or acting on complaints in order to maintain a ‘clean’ annual report and paint an incident of sexual harassment as nothing more than a HR hiccup. The truly malicious aspect is the manner in which various organisations scuttle complaints of sexual harassment - maintaining inclusive PoSH policy for the purpose of optics on their web page, but never actually implementing the same. The vastly experienced DEI professionals who act as external members on ICCs use their language and expertise to gaslight a complainant into believing that her complaint is not an ICC, while simultaneously stating that the complainant is not aware of the company’s anti-sexual harassment policy.

The current state of ICCs in any corporate setting is such that it actively makes it harder for a victim to lodge a complaint of sexual harassment, and even a complaint is lodged, rather than acting proactively on the complaints received, they tend to require constant nudging and follow-ups from the victim to make progress on the enquiry. Yet again, it is astounding that members of ICCs, who claim to have several decades worth of experience in anti-harassment mechanisms, are not aware that an ICC also has the jurisdiction to take up complaints regarding hostile working environments. Although an appeal lies from the orders of an ICC, the proceedings themselves are so mired in ambiguous incompetence that it becomes nearly impossible to make out reasonable cause for grounds of appeal.

Be it the Local Committee or the Internal Complaints Committee of any workplace across various fields - the practice of scaring off complainants with daunting procedures is discreetly enforced in order to uphold the status quo and offer protection to the patriarchy, benefitting the abusers and the abettors of all genders, who uphold these violent, anti - victim structures. While the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was heralded as a game-changing legislation meant to ensure safe work spaces for all women across the country, irrespective of the nature of their jobs, the vagueness of the rules and regulations and the inherent problem of ICCs being staffed with persons engrained with biases, renders the entire mechanism impractical and hostile. As much as it is essential to address the gaps pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aurelino Fernandes, it is also necessary that we question, and more importantly, hold accountable the members of ICCs for their actions, irrespective of their gender, as oppression knows no gender.