Recently, a woman publicly accused a journalist of multiple forms of abuse. She was not just seeking justice through civil or criminal channels, but she approached the organisation he is associated as well, asking them to act. While the journalist has denied the allegations and the organisation has announced an internal inquiry, the grave accusations prompted the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to direct a police investigation.But beyond the legal and institutional response, the case reignites a difficult question: when allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV) or domestic abuse are made against an employee – outside the bounds of workplace harassment – what can organisations do?
Advocate Akila RS, a legal expert on workplace inclusion and diversity, says the line is clear under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, widely known as the POSH Act.
“The complainant must have some connection to the workplace,” she explains. “The Act covers sexual harassment at the workplace, but it defines ‘workplace’ expansively. In journalism, that could include hotel rooms on assignment, transit spaces, or interview locations. But if an act occurred outside work-related contexts and within a purely personal relationship, the POSH Act will not apply.”
In such cases, Akila says that the organisations will have to fall back on internal codes of conduct and employment contracts. “If a contract includes a clause around moral turpitude – which sexual abuse certainly falls under – then they can initiate action.”
Elaborating, she says that ‘moral turpitude’ is a broad legal term encompassing “acts that are gravely immoral, dishonest, or unethical.”
“But invoking such a clause is only possible if it’s included in the employee’s terms of service. In the absence of such language, and if the case doesn’t fall under POSH, any action rests squarely on an organisation’s HR policies,” she says.
This is where many organisations find themselves in a grey zone. As journalist Ragamalika Karthikeyan observes, “Someone cannot be just fired based on an accusation. If organisational policy says action can be taken for behaviour outside of the organisation for whatever reason, there has to be some internal fact-finding to assess whether there is truth to the allegations.”
When asked if the organisation should be involved in such cases, she says, “In an ideal situation, organisations shouldn’t have to. However, the reason why organisations are brought in by survivors even when it is not a case of workplace sexual harassment is because survivors often find nowhere else to go, no other means of fixing accountability and seeking justice. In many cases, survivors don’t want to pursue a criminal complaint, fearing the emotional toll, social scrutiny, or futility of the legal process. They may not have access to civil remedies either, like divorce or alimony, especially if the relationships are not legally formalised. So they turn to the workplace as the only visible, tangible place where someone can be held accountable.”
She further adds that this indicates a failure of the system that people are driven to social media instead of court, and rely on employers instead of judges.
But while the moral urgency is palpable, legal experts caution against rushed decisions. “Natural justice must be upheld,” says Akila. “The accused must have a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. Otherwise, any action taken can be challenged as amounting to unfair dismissal.”
“A fair inquiry, even if informal, is critical. The idea is not necessarily to arrive at a legal conclusion, but to assess whether continued association with the person against whom an allegation is raised aligns with the organisation’s values and duty of care toward its other employees,” Ragamalika adds.
When asked about cases where the alleged perpetrator is in a profession that has helped them build up a public persona, such as journalism, and could threaten to use his clout to silence them, Akila says, “This is precisely why organisations have codes of conduct and other internal policies. If the accused person has any sort of power over the victim, this can be brought to the organisation’s attention.”
Akila also adds that the primary remedial pathways available for married couples or those in an intimate relationship are civil or criminal remedial measures, especially the Domestic Violence Act. “The Act applies even to persons who are in a live-in relationship, not just married couples.”
Talking about scenarios in which the complainant is an employee, she says even if POSH doesn’t apply, support mechanisms can and should be activated. “That includes paid leave, mental health support, and even legal assistance by connecting them to subsidised or pro bono lawyers. Organisations also have a responsibility to ensure that the complainant doesn’t face a hostile environment. This means curbing gossip, rumour-mongering, or indirect harassment from colleagues.”