By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
From corporate offices to public institutions, confidentiality in sexual harassment proceedings is not merely a procedural formality. The recent Delhi High Court’s scrutiny of a government Handbook is a timely reminder that confidentiality is a statutory obligation- not a discretionary choice, a public-relations considerations or a safeguard that expires with the inquiry.
Introduction:
A Handbook intended to educate people about the prevention of sexual harassment should, above all, reflect the principles of dignity, sensitivity and legal compliance that it seeks to promote. What happens, however, when the very document intended to advance awareness become the subject of scrutiny for allegedly revealing the identity of a sexual harassment survivor?
This question came into sharp focus in September 2026 when the Hon’ble Delhi High Court questioned the Union Government over the disclosure of a survivor’s identity in a official handbook published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The proceedings arose from a petition seeking, among other reliefs, the removal of a passage from the Handbook and the masking or delisting of identifying information available online.
During the proceedings, Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma questioned how the identity of a survivor could be disclosed in an official government publication. The Court reportedly emphasized that an educational purpose did not justify revealing the survivor’s name, observing that even judges use anonymised references such as “X” in appropriate cases. It also sought details of the officials responsible for the handbook’s contents.
“How is the name of the victim disclosed in this? How can you do that? You are the government of India. You yourself are publishing revealing the name of the victim and you are circulating it. It is on your official website,” Justice Sharma said.[1]
“For educational purpose you don’t need the victim’s name, right? Even the judges write ‘X’. There is a Supreme court judgement. There are directions of the high court. You can’t disclose the name. Now it is punishable,”
The Centre’s counsel stated that the Handbook had been published in 2015 for educational purposes and that the parties had subsequently settled their dispute. The Court’s observations nevertheless brought the issue of confidentiality into sharp focus.
The significance of this extends beyond the circumstances of one publication. It raises a fundamental question that every employer, HR professional, Internal Committee (IC) Member and compliance team should consider: If confidentiality is a statutory requirement, can the desire to educate, inform or demonstrate compliance justify disclosing information that the law protects?
The POSH framework provides a clear starting point for answering this.
Confidentiality under Section 16
Section 16 of the POSH Act expressly prohibits the publication, communication or making known to the public, press or media of specified information relating to sexual harassment complaints and proceedings.
The protected information includes:
- The contents of the complaint;
- The identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses;
- Information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings;
- Recommendations of the Internal Committee (IC) or the Local Committee (LC), as the case may be;
- Action taken by the Employer or the District Officer under the Act.
Importantly, Section 16 begins with a non-obstante clause operating notwithstanding the Right to Information Act, 2005. This reinforces the specific statutory protection afforded to the categories of information identified in the provision.
The law does, however, recognize a limited exception. Information concerning the justice secured to a victim may be disseminated, provided that the name, address, identity or other particulars capable of identifying the aggrieved woman or witnesses are not disclosed.
The legal position is therefore more nuanced that saying that all information connected with a POSH complaint must remain secret. The Act distinguishes between protected case-specific information and permissible communication that does not compromise the identities or other protected particulars of those involved. [2]
The distinction is critical. The POSH Act does not prevent employers from explaining their policies, communicating reporting channels, conducting awareness programmes or demonstrating that an effective redressal mechanism exists. It restricts the public disclosure of protected information arising from individual complaints and proceedings.
The obligation is not to remain silent about POSH compliances; it is to communicate about compliance without compromising the confidentiality of individual cases.
Misconception that confidentiality applies only to the Complainant
Confidentiality is sometimes viewed primarily as a means of protecting the Complainant. Section 16 of the Act, however, expressly protects information concerning the Complainant, Respondent and witnesses, if any.
This is significant because the integrity of an inquiry depends on protecting the interests of everyone involved, while ensuring that the complaint is examined fairly and impartially.
- For the Complainant, confidentiality can help reduce unwanted exposure, stigma, reputational harm and the fear that reporting sexual harassment may invite public scrutiny.
- For the Respondent, it helps prevent complaint-related allegations, evidence and inquiry findings from being circulated publicly outside the prescribed process.
- For the witnesses, it helps safeguard their privacy and reduces the risk of unwanted exposure arising from their participation or involvement. [3]
- Most importantly, for the organization, it supports the credibility of the redressal mechanism and helps maintain confidence that complaints will be handled through an appropriate, structured process.
Confidentiality is not intended to shield misconduct or prevent accountability. It ensures that accountability is pursued through the prescribed process, rather than through public circulation of protected information.
Confidentiality does not override natural justice
A legally sound confidentiality framework must also preserve the rights of the parties within the inquiry process.
The POSH Act prescribes a process for receiving and examining complaints, conducting inquiries, preparing reports and acting on recommendations. The Complainant and Respondent must receive the information and opportunity to respond that the applicable law requires. The inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. [4]
Section 16 of the Act should not be interpreted as a blanket prohibition on disclosure to the parties or other persons who are legally entitled to receive information.
The relevant distinction is between disclosure within the authorized statutory process and public dissemination of protected information. The former may be necessary for procedural fairness; while the latter is restricted by Section 16.
Does Confidentiality expire when the inquiry ends?
The completion of an inquiry does not, by itself, remove the restrictions under Section 16.
The provision does not prescribe an expiry period after which protected complaint contents, inquiry proceedings, recommendations or action taken become publicly disclosable. The submission of a report, implementation of recommendations, conclusion of disciplinary proceedings or settlement of a dispute does not automatically extinguish the statutory protection.
This matters because the consequences of disclosure can be enduring. Once information is placed online, it may be copied, indexed, reproduced and circulated across platforms. Removing the original document may not remove every copy or search result.
Organizations should therefore treat confidentiality as a continuing obligation in respect of information protected by law, including when complaint records are achieved, training material is updated or old publications are reissued.
That continuing obligation must, however, be understood alongside lawful disclosure requirements.
Can confidentiality breach attract legal consequences?
Yes. Section 17 of the POSH Act addresses contraventions of Section 16 by a person entrusted with the duty to handle or deal with a complaint, inquiry, recommendations or action. It provides for consequences under the applicable service rules or prescribed penalty framework.
Rule 12 of the POSH Rules, 2013 provides for recovery of a penalty of INR 5000 from the person who contravenes Section 16 subject to the applicable legal requirements.
Additionally, an employer’s failure to comply with its statutory obligations may attract institutional consequences under the applicable law. Depending on the facts and circumstances, an unauthorized disclosure may also raise other legal issues.
The Delhi High Court’s reported scrutiny of the officials responsible for the Handbook’s contents is a reminder that official status, organizational authority or a legitimate communication objective does not remove the need to examine whether protected information has been disclosed lawfully.
For employers, the practical implication is clear: confidentiality should be built into the organization’s compliance processes, rather than treated as an issue to be considered only after a disclosure has occurred.
[3] https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/anonymity-under-posh-act/
[4] https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/intersection-of-natural-justice-and-posh-law/