Back
Nashik Court Calls Out Corporate Silence: POSH Member’s Inaction Deemed
A has sent a clear message to corporate India: members of cannot turn a blind eye to workplace sexual harassment and expect to escape liability. On , Additional Sessions Judge V. V. Kathare rejected the bail plea of TCS executive Ashwini Ashok Chainani, holding that her alleged failure to act on repeated complaints enabled the harassment to continue unchecked.
The Allegations That Rocked TCS Nashik
The case stems from an FIR registered at (C.R. No. 163 of 2026) alleging multiple acts of sexual harassment at the company’s Nashik branch. The complainant, an associate handling Axis Bank vehicle loan defaulters, claimed sustained misconduct by team leaders Raza Meman and Shahrukh, including intrusive personal questions about her marriage and honeymoon plans, sexually coloured remarks, and inappropriate staring.
She further alleged that after wearing a saree on Gudipadwa, one accused stalked her in a manner that left her feeling molested. The toxic atmosphere allegedly forced her to resign in . Chainani, as site head and POSH committee member, was accused of doing nothing when the victim approached her—allegedly blaming the complainant for wanting “to be in highlight” and asking her to “let it go.”
Defense Arguments vs Prosecution’s Stand
Chainani’s counsel argued she was based in Pune and had no direct supervision over Nashik operations. They highlighted that other managers who received oral complaints were not named as accused, pointed to the absence of a written complaint, and cited a ruling that mere inaction does not constitute . They also raised concerns over short-notice arrest and procedural lapses under .
The State countered that Chainani, as an Internal Committee member, had a under the to assist the victim in formalising her complaint. Instead of fulfilling that obligation, her alleged response discouraged the victim and allowed the misconduct to persist. The prosecution warned of and potential witness influence given the applicant’s influential position.
Court’s Sharp Reasoning on POSH Accountability
Judge Kathare distinguished the present facts from the cited precedent, noting clear evidence that Chainani allegedly ignored complaints and actively discouraged the victim. The court stressed that the places an on committee members to render “” for written complaints.
The judgment highlighted that the victim came from a modest background and feared career repercussions—precisely why the POSH framework mandates proactive help from internal committees. Chainani’s alleged advice to “let it go” was viewed not as neutral inaction but as conduct that shielded the perpetrators.
Key Observations
“Her silence and insensitivity had endorsed the acts of the accused. She turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what was happening in front of her.”
“Chainani did not prevent the co-accused by taking appropriate action against them and waited till the crisis occurred.”
“The applicant being the member of the Internal Committee did not render her assistance to the victim for making the complaint in writing as mandated by the provisions of said act.”
“There is every likelihood of and in the event of release on bail.”
Bail Denied Amid Nascent Investigation
Given that the probe remains at an early stage and Chainani had already spent over a month in custody, the court found no grounds to grant relief. The upcoming marriage of her son and claims of cooperation were insufficient to outweigh concerns of evidence tampering.
The ruling arrives at a time when the TCS Nashik episode has drawn national attention to gaps in corporate sexual harassment redressal mechanisms. It underscores that POSH committee members are not ceremonial figures but bear real legal accountability when they fail to act.
By denying bail, the Nashik court has reinforced that protecting victims and upholding statutory duties are not optional—they are enforceable obligations with criminal consequences for those who breach them.
