Beyond POSH, Where Trust Fails

When allegations surface within one of India’s most trusted corporate institutions, the issue does not remain confined to a single workplace—it becomes a test of the systems millions depend on. The recent controversy surrounding Tata Consultancy Services is one such moment, compelling a closer examination of the gap between policy and lived reality in India’s corporate environment.

India’s legal framework on workplace harassment is, by design, robust. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 mandates Internal Committees, defined timelines, and employer accountability. On paper, compliance is widespread, with companies reporting thousands of resolved complaints each year.

Yet, beneath this procedural order lies a quieter, more complex reality—underreporting.

A survey by Ernst & Young, conducted in the aftermath of India’s #MeToo movement, found that a significant proportion of employees were either unaware of formal mechanisms or hesitant to use them. Subsequent workplace studies have echoed similar concerns: fear of retaliation, doubts about confidentiality, and scepticism about outcomes continue to shape employee behaviour.

In many workplaces, the pattern is familiar, if seldom acknowledged. Concerns are first shared informally—among colleagues, within small circles—before being weighed against potential consequences. Formal complaints are often treated as a last resort rather than a first response. By the time issues reach official channels, they have often already escalated.

The present controversy, therefore, matters not only for its specifics, but for what it reveals. It shifts the conversation from the existence of safeguards to their credibility.

Trust is not built through policy documents; it is built through precedent. Employees watch closely how earlier complaints were handled, how promptly action was taken, and whether outcomes were perceived as fair. Where this trust is uncertain, silence becomes a rational choice rather than an exception.

The events of 2018 offered a telling reminder. During the #MeToo wave, allegations across sectors often surfaced outside formal mechanisms, despite those mechanisms being in place. The turn towards public disclosure was not incidental—it reflected a deeper lack of confidence in internal processes.

For professionals from the Northeast, this question of trust carries particular weight. Each year, thousands move from cities like Guwahati, Imphal, and Shillong to corporate hubs across the country, navigating unfamiliar cultural and professional environments.

In such settings, institutional safeguards are not abstract assurances—they are essential. When confidence in these systems weakens, the impact extends far beyond a single organisation.

It would be reductive to treat one case as representative of an entire industry. India’s IT sector has enabled mobility, meritocracy, and global competitiveness. But credibility, once questioned, rarely remains contained. It invites wider scrutiny.

The issue, at its core, is not procedural inadequacy but cultural inconsistency. Compliance can be achieved through checklists; credibility cannot. Many organisations meet statutory requirements—conducting training sessions, forming committees, and publishing guidelines. Yet, when these measures are perceived as formalities rather than commitments, they fail to reassure those they are meant to protect.

Human Resources departments sit at the centre of this tension. Expected to balance organisational integrity with employee welfare, they often operate under competing pressures. Where processes lack transparency, even well-intentioned actions can appear insufficient, or worse, unconvincing.

Strengthening trust requires more than reiterating policy—it demands visible change. Timely response must replace procedural delay. Transparency must counter opacity. Accountability must be evident, not assumed.

Equally important is how organisations frame such moments. The term “isolated incident” may offer immediate reassurance, but it can also narrow the scope of inquiry. Even singular failures, when they occur within structured systems, warrant broader reflection.

The significance of this moment lies not only in its outcome, but in what it signals. For millions of young professionals—many far from home—corporate institutions are built on an expectation of safety, fairness, and accountability.

A system that is not trusted is, in effect, a system that has already failed.