POSH compliance in public sector banks: CIC remands RTI appeal to ministry for fair hearing

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to re-examine an appeal filed under the Right to Information Act regarding the implementation of workplace sexual harassment laws across public sector banks, reinforcing the framework for institutional oversight and regulatory compliance.

In a recent order, Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh remanded the matter to the ministry's First Appellate Authority (FAA), instructing it to afford a personal hearing to both the applicant and the public authority before issuing a reasoned decision.

What the RTI applicant requested

The applicant, Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury, raised queries regarding the execution of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act, within state-owned financial institutions.

Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in the landmark Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa case, the applicant sought comprehensive records, including:

• Details of public sector banks registered on the central government's online complaint tracker, the SHe-Box portal.
• Annual returns submitted by banks in accordance with statutory obligations.
• Penalties imposed on institutions for non-compliance with POSH guidelines.
• Details of active court cases involving aggrieved women employees in public sector banks.

The applicant approached the CIC contending that the ministry had supplied incomplete information and that he was denied a personal hearing during his first appeal, despite specifically requesting one.

Ministry response and nodal authority jurisdiction

The Ministry of Women and Child Development clarified that it had furnished all information available within its records. Ministry representatives submitted that administrative jurisdiction over banking institutions rests with the Department of Financial Services, which functions as the nodal department for the sector.

The ministry explained that its concerned division does not maintain consolidated data concerning bank-specific annual returns, penalties, or pending litigation, advising that specific details could be obtained directly from the respective public information officers of individual public sector banks.

Why the CIC remanded the appeal

While reviewing the proceedings, the Commission observed that although the ministry stated the first appeal had been disposed of, a copy of the official order was not available on record.

"In these circumstances, the Commission is unable to verify the contents of the order stated to have been passed by the FAA or ascertain whether the Appellant's request for a personal hearing was considered," Information Commissioner P.R. Ramesh noted in the order.

The CIC clarified that it was not offering a final opinion on the adequacy of the ministry's response or the details sought. Instead, it directed the First Appellate Authority to conduct a fresh adjudication following a fair hearing for both parties and ordered the Public Information Officer to submit a compliance report.

If the applicant remains dissatisfied following the fresh decision of the First Appellate Authority, statutory provisions under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act permit a second appeal to be filed before the Commission.