When Consent Isn’t Clear: Why POSH Still Applies Without a Complaint

A lot has been said—and felt—about the viral Coldplay kiss-cam moment involving a CEO and an HR head, both from the same organization. The incident quickly snowballed into meme territory, sparking a wave of humorous takes, brand opportunism, and cheeky advertisements across social media platforms. So, the dominant narrative in professional platforms called for compassion, cautioning against digital judgment and reminding us that leaders, too, are human. While empathy is essential, I believe it is time we brought clarity, structure, and realism to this conversation—primarily through the lens of the POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Act.

The most common question is, “Does this fall under POSH?” The softer take is, “There’s no complaint, so it can’t.” 
But here is the more accurate answer: Yes, this situation still squarely falls under POSH.

Let’s explore this in detail.

Consent in Hierarchical Relationships Isn’t Always Free

The POSH Law does not only deal with explicit harassment. It is also deeply concerned with power differentials and the subtle coercions they create. A relationship between a senior and a subordinate, particularly one where the subordinate reports directly to the senior—as appears to be the case here—is never on neutral ground. Because the imbalance of power means consent may not truly be "free." 

Courts in India and POSH guidelines recognize that hierarchical disparity can create situations of “apparent consent,” not genuine, uncoerced consent.

Even if both parties insist it is consensual, the law—and more importantly, workplace culture—must question how free that consent really was. Could she say no without fear of consequence? Could he act without favoritism? If the answer isn’t a confident “yes,” then the relationship is problematic. That is not moral policing. That is structural risk management.

POSH Isn’t Only About Complaints—It’s About Culture

One of the most overlooked facts is this: the POSH Internal Committee was deliberately renamed from “Internal Complaints Committee” to “Internal Committee” to reflect a wider scope. The Act is not limited to investigating complaints. It includes preventing harassment, monitoring risks, and setting behavioural norms.

The law is clear about prevention. It calls upon every workplace to create a culture of safety, respect, and transparency—before harm occurs. When two senior leaders engage in a personal relationship without disclosure, especially across a reporting line, it signals a potential misuse of power and a possible chilling effect on those around them.

So, even if no one has complained—yet—the situation merits scrutiny under POSH.

Let’s Ground This in the Law

Let us look at this incident with a more realist, risk-aware lens, especially through the framework of POSH Law and power dynamics. It calls for a look at the intent behind the POSH Act—not just in letter but in spirit.

Lack of complaint doesn’t mean POSH doesn’t apply.

Yes—Section 4 and Section 19 of the POSH Act talk about prevention and deterrence, not just redressal.

•  Section 4 – Constitution of Internal Committee (IC): 
  This section does not limit the IC’s role to handling complaints. It sets it up as a standing committee—a body that is always in place, implicitly supporting ongoing prevention and vigilance within the organization.

•  Section 19 – Duties of Employer:
  This section is explicit about the employer’s duty to prevent sexual harassment—not merely address it after a complaint is filed.

Clause (a) requires a safe working environment, which includes preventive infrastructure—not just reactive complaint resolution.

Clause (b) and (c) focus on displaying the penal consequences of sexual harassment and the order constituting the IC, and IC and awareness and training, which are inherently preventive in nature.

The very presence of the IC, and its proactive training, visibility, and integration into workplace systems, acts as a deterrent against harassment—even in the absence of complaints.

Together, the sections affirm that POSH is not just about reacting to a complaint—it is about creating an environment where harassment is less likely to occur at all.

The IC’s duty includes prevention, not just resolution.

To carry out their preventive role, including awareness & sensitization trainings, the IC must examine the possibility of hostile work environments arising due to visible or hidden relationships, especially when power dynamics are involved—even in the absence of a formal complaint.

Ethics and Legal Risk aren't mutually exclusive.

Social media may be reactive, sometimes unfair, but that does not mean it is always wrong to question power abuses. This isn't always about chasing a scandal—it’s about people questioning, “If we’re not allowed to have consensual relationships with our subordinates, how are leaders getting away with it?”

Leaders Must Set the Standard

Let’s not forget leaders set the tone. Imagine this wasn’t a CEO and an HR Head. Suppose it was a team leader and a junior employee. 

Suppose it was a leaked WhatsApp photo. The leaked picture of the team lead and a junior colleague—arms around each other in what looked like an intimate moment—set off a storm in their otherwise quiet department. Within hours, phones were buzzing. The image made its way from group chats to hushed corridor conversations.

People were not entirely surprised. There had always been whispers—side glances at meetings, unexplained project assignments, and inside jokes that others weren’t part of. Some even raised eyebrows at how often she traveled with him on client visits. But nothing had ever crossed a line. Or so they thought.

With the photo making the rounds, the unease turned into outrage. It was not just about the relationship—it was about perceived betrayal, favoritism, and the collapse of the trust the team lead was supposed to uphold. His speeches about ethics and professionalism suddenly felt hollow. For some, it triggered memories of being overlooked. For others, it confirmed what they had feared: that power, when left unchecked, bends rules in private while preaching them in public.

Would we hesitate to call this a potential POSH concern?

The higher up someone is in the hierarchy, the more their behavior defines workplace norms. Even the perception of favoritism, coercion, or privilege can trigger reputational damage or internal unrest—regardless of whether a complaint is filed.

Monitoring risks refers to the proactive responsibility of employers and ICs to identify and address situations or patterns that may increase the likelihood of sexual harassment in the workplace—even before a complaint is made.

What does "monitoring risks" look like in practice?

1. Spotting Patterns of Power Imbalance

Example: A senior employee consistently works late with a junior of the opposite gender, behind closed doors. Even if nothing has been reported, the situation presents a risk of coercion or perception of undue influence.

2. Reviewing Workplace Dynamics

• Are certain departments receiving repeated informal concerns?

• Is there an unspoken culture of sexist jokes or banter?

• Does alcohol flow freely at off-site events without boundaries? 
  These are all potential risk zones that must be assessed and addressed.

3. Evaluating Organisational Processes

• Are promotions, travel assignments, or appraisals being handled transparently?

• If not, favoritism and proximity-based biases could emerge—raising both POSH risks and morale issues.

4. Anonymous Feedback or Exit Interviews

• Trends in exit feedback—like discomfort with a manager or vague references to a “toxic culture”—could signal deeper problems that need attention.

5. Online and Hybrid Interactions

• With remote work, risks may emerge through inappropriate DMs, after-hours video calls, or informal group chats.

In essence, monitoring risks means staying alert to environments and behaviours that may not yet be complaints but have the potential to become ones if ignored. This reflects the preventive spirit of the Act, not just its punitive function.

Bottom of Form

Policies Must Evolve with Reality

Organizations need to ask themselves:

• Do we have a clear, enforced relationship disclosure policy?

• Are our leaders trained to handle conflicts of interest and reporting line ethics?

• Is our POSH Committee equipped to interpret subtle risks, not just react to formal complaints?

Because today it’s a kiss-cam. Tomorrow may be a dinner photo, an unexplained promotion, or a whisper campaign in the corridors. If we want to prevent damage, we have to be willing to see the grey areas and address them before they become crises.

Accountability and Empathy Can Coexist

Empathy is essential, but it is not a shield from scrutiny. Accountability does not mean cruelty. It means creating processes and cultures that protect both individuals and institutions. It means acting before a complaint, not just after a scandal.

Let’s be fair—but let’s also be firm. 
POSH is not just about redressal—it’s about prevention. This kiss-cam moment isn’t just a meme. It’s a mirror. It is about all of us—and whether our systems are robust enough to handle the human complexities of modern workplaces.

It’s time we looked into it with both empathy and honesty.

Let us strive for preventive policies, aware leaders, and cultures that value compassion and clarity. The workplace is not just a place of employment—it’s where power, trust, and identity converge. It deserves better guardrails than sympathy or spectacle.