Published On: February 4th 2026
Authored By: Reeba Banday
INTRODUCTION
We all go to work with many goals in mind, like earning a livelihood, building a career, and to be respected as professionals. In return, every person is entitled to one essential, fundamental thing for their time and talent: absolute security and dignity.
Yet historically, the workplace has not been a safe space for many people in India. Sexual harassment was widespread, and the fear of retaliation often silenced victims, as speaking up risked an individual’s job or reputation.This painful reality forced the creation of a legal framework starting with the deeply disturbing case of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker who was violently assaulted to prevent a child’s marriage. Her fight for justice exposed the severe lack of legal protection for working women.[1]
As a result, the Supreme Court issued the landmark Vishaka Guidelines in 1997, which mandated that employers must prevent sexual harassment.[2] These guidelines acted as law for 16 years. Recognizing the need for a stronger, formal system, the government then enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). [3]
While we are rightly fighting for these basic rights for women, we must also open our eyes to a larger truth: men are also harassed, and people who are gender nonconforming (not just men or women) also suffer the same kind of unfair abuse.
As a lawyer, I must state this clearly: The POSH law exists to protect the basic dignity that our Constitution promises to everyone in India. If the goal is to protect dignity, then that protection must cover everyone.
The POSH Act is important and should never be weakened. But its protective shield must be made wider to match the way our world works today. The law needs to change from being a historic defense for just one gender to being a basic, universal right for every single employee.
GENDER-BASED LIMITATION
The main limitation of the POSH Act lies in its definition of who can file a complaint.
Section 2(a) states that only an “aggrieved woman” can be a complainant.
This creates a legal barrier. [4]Men and other genders, like transgender, cannot use the special remedies provided under the Act.This limitation made sense at the time of the Vishaka judgment, as the case focused on protecting women at the workplace. However, in today’s context, this creates a serious problem.
Sexual harassment is not limited to one gender. It is essentially an abuse of power, which can be committed by anyone in a position of authority, regardless of gender. Therefore, the law should focus on the wrong act itself, not only on the gender of the person who suffers from it.
CONSTITUIONAL EQUALITY AND THE PROBLEM OF EXCLUSION
The POSH Act protects only women. Male victims are therefore not covered by this legal remedy.This raises serious constitutional concerns under Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee the right to equality and the right to live with dignity.[5] If the law demands equality and fairness for women, it should also provide the same protection to men. Equality cannot work for one gender alone. When a law treats two groups differently, that difference must be reasonable and connected to the purpose of the law. The purpose of workplace harassment laws is to protect dignity at work. Today, excluding men from such protection cannot be justified. The need for gender-neutral laws was also suggested by the Justice Verma Committee report in 2013.[6] Protection of workplace dignity should be available to everyone, regardless of gender. Similarly, the right to a dignified workplace belongs to all persons, including the recognition of rights for transgender persons.[7] When the law does not give male victims a proper and effective remedy, it reduces the value of their dignity at work. This goes against the basic promise of the Constitution. Legal scholars have consistently argued that gender-neutral laws are needed to protect all victims of workplace harassment.[8]
WHY MALE VICTIMS STRUGGLE TO GET JUSTICE
When a man faces harassment at work, the current system doesn’t give him good options. There are mainly two paths, but both have some kind of issues.
For women, the POSH Act gives the Internal Committee (IC) strong legal powers. It can call witnesses, ask for documents, and make sure the investigation is fair.For men, the IC loses these powers. It becomes just a company team following internal rules. The process depends on the employer, not the law. This makes it hard for men to get fair treatment.
Men can also file a police case under laws like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). But criminal law is slow, public, and focused on punishment.[9]
Workplace harassment often needs quick, private solutions like mediation, transfers, or warnings. Going through criminal court can harm a man’s career and mental health without really fixing the workplace problem.
MEN’S RIGHT TO SAFETY
The question is not whether men can protect themselves. The real question is about their rights and remedies. Every person at work has the right to feel safe and respected, but right now, the law doesn’t fully protect men.[10]
Imagine a man being harassed by his boss. He can’t just leave the job; he needs it to live. And yet, there is no proper legal way for him to report it or get help. That’s the problem.Society often tells men to be strong, silent, and “handle it.” But harassment is not about strength; it’s about power, control, and abuse.
Men should have the same right as anyone else to stop harassment, get justice, and continue their work without fear.
Some companies are trying to change, making rules that protect everyone, regardless of gender. That’s good, but company policies are not enough. The law itself must change[11]. The POSH Act should call every victim an “aggrieved person,” not just women. This simple change would make a huge difference; it would give men clear legal protection, real remedies, and the confidence to speak up. Everyone deserves to work in a safe, respectful place. Genders should never decide who gets justice. Men’s voices, their dignity, and their safety matter just as much. It’s time for the law to recognize that
CONCLUSION
Work is not just a place to earn money; it’s where we spend most of our time, grow, and contribute. Everyone, no matter their gender, deserves to feel safe, respected, and valued at work. Changing the law to call every victim an “aggrieved person” would make a big difference. It would give everyone clear legal rights, real ways to get help, and the confidence to speak up. Safety, dignity, and justice at work are basic rights for all. It is time for the law to include everyone so that no one has to suffer in.
REFERENCES
[1] Vishaka and Others v State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241, para 1.
[2] Vishaka and Others v State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241.
[3] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (India).
[4] ibid, s 2(a).
[5] Constitution of India Article 14 and 21
[6] Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law, Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2013) 42
[7] national Legal Services Authority v Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863, para 118.
[8]N. R. Madhava Menon, ‘Gender Justice: The Need for Gender-Neutral Legislation on Workplace Harassment’ in L. C. Singh (ed), The Future of Indian Law (LexisNexis 2021) 145.
[9] Ministry of Law and Justice, Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Government of India 2023) para 5.3
[10] A. K. Sikri, The Right to Safety and Dignity at the Workplace: A Comparative Legal Study (1st edn, Universal Law Publishing 2020) 88–90.
[11] S. G. P. C., ‘Expanding the Ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: A Legislative Imperative’ (2022) 13(2) Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 45, 50.
