Know your laws: What can a man do when falsely accused of sexual harassment?

Shilpa Shinde, who rose to fame with her lead character in popular TV show 'Bhabhiji Ghar Par Hain', has gone viral after admitting that she had raised false allegations of workplace sexual harassment against the show's producer in 2016, just to get out of the show.

Her statement has sparked a huge debate among netizens and industry insiders about false POSH complaints and their impact. But could the actor face any legal fallout?

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act, and the Supreme Court's Vishaka judgment recognise workplace sexual harassment and its impact on women's ability to work outside the home.

It exists to protect women employees from sexual harassment — not just in corporate or government offices, but in any place of work: schools, hospitals, film sets, even domestic households.

But like any other law, questions have been raised about its misuse and what happens to a man if a woman files a false complaint.

Under the Act, the Internal Complaints Committee of the workplace, or the District Complaints Committee, can take action if the complaint is found to be prima facie false and mala fide.

Section 14 of the Act provides for penalising the complainant if the complaint is found to be false with malicious intent. The same section also has provisions to ensure that women are not deterred from filing complaints:

• A complaint cannot be seen as false simply because the woman is unable to bring proof or witnesses.
• The malicious intent has to be specifically established by a separate ICC inquiry before any disciplinary action is recommended against the complainant.

Under Section 14, the ICC or the District Committee can order the same penalties on the woman as against the man — from warning and apology to demotion or transfer, withholding promotion, financial penalty or even dismissal from service — if the complaint is found to be deliberately false and malicious.

But like any other complaint, it is difficult to prove "deliberate malice" unless there is direct evidence.

In 2020, the Madras High Court passed a significant verdict that addressed the issue of false complaints under the Act. In the State vs Rema Srinivasan Iyengar case, a two-judge bench of the High Court held: "Though the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is intended to have an equal standing for women in the workplace and to have a cordial workplace in which their dignity and self-respect are protected, it cannot be allowed to be misused by women to harass someone with exaggerated or non-existent allegations."

With these observations, the High Court quashed the harassment case against the accused man, but did not pass any orders against the woman complainant.

In 2025, the Delhi High Court quashed defamation proceedings against a woman for making a 'false' harassment complaint against her boss, but allowed the woman to be prosecuted for "criminal intimidation" for threatening to file the harassment case.

The Delhi High Court drew a line between a complaint and a "threat of complaint".

"For defamation to be established, it must be shown that imputations were made with the intention of harming reputation or with knowledge or reason to believe that such imputations would harm reputation. Mere filing of complaints, even if later found to be false, does not automatically constitute defamation, particularly when such complaints are made to authorities in due course of law," held the Delhi High Court.

With the largely unorganised nature of work in an industry like film and television, the focus shifts to the District Complaints Committee or internal mediation by industry unions, since there is no "office" and the committee may or may not function properly. In the Shinde case, for example, there was an out-of-court settlement between the actor and producer, releasing the actor from her filming contract and paying the remaining money due to her in exchange for withdrawal of the complaint.

WHAT CAN A MAN LEGALLY DO IF SUBJECTED TO A FALSE COMPLAINT?

According to legal experts, a man who has been subjected to a false complaint under the POSH Act can either seek action against the woman under Section 14 through an enquiry by the ICC, or he can choose to file a criminal case for defamation or a civil suit for defamation and damages. However, such complaints are examined very carefully by the courts.

In the MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani case, which became the flashpoint of the #MeToo Movement, the trial court dismissed the defamation case filed by MJ Akbar as baseless, and observed that "a woman cannot be punished for raising her voice against sexual abuse on the pretext of a criminal complaint of defamation."

The court observed: "The right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the right to life and dignity of a woman, and the right to equality before the law and equal protection of law. The woman has a right to put her grievance on any platform of her choice, even after decades."

CASES WHERE COURTS HAVE PASSED ORDERS AGAINST FALSE COMPLAINTS

If allegations are found to be deliberately false, there have been some instances of courts stepping in to penalise the complainant as well.

In 2019, the Delhi High Court allowed a government office to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a woman and ordered her to pay Rs 50,000 as litigation costs for filing a false POSH complaint against a fellow official, after the ICC inquiry report showed allegations of misconduct against the woman.

In 2025, a Delhi district court took the unprecedented step of awarding Rs 10 lakh as compensation in a defamation case to a BSF officer who was falsely accused of sexual harassment by a junior officer. The court passed the order on the basis of the "mental harassment suffered by the plaintiff due to false allegations of sexual harassment, and his clean and unblemished career record of more than 35 years."

It also noted that the enquiry by the IG had categorically recorded that "the allegations against the plaintiff were prima facie false, frivolous and with a mala fide intention to cause harassment to the plaintiff for being strict with her on bona fide professional issues."

The Saket Court observed in its verdict: "Though sexual harassment of women at the workplace is a serious offence, a false allegation of sexual harassment against an innocent person cannot be weighed any less. It violates the fundamental rights of a person to live with dignity. It has a tendency to affect his professional as well as personal life as the allegations spread like wildfire in society and people may even question the person accused and form adverse opinions about his character. Such circumstances make it difficult for a person to exist peacefully in such an environment and force him to lead a life with a sense of shame, lowering his self-esteem.

"Thus, false complaints of such a nature filed by officials of government departments have to be dealt with an iron hand to ensure that a strong message percolates through society and deters such people from making false allegations against an innocent individual. Otherwise, superior officers will not be able to do anything out of fear of being prosecuted and will become mute spectators to the acts of non-performing officers under their control," the order added.

WHAT DO EXPERTS SAY?

Speaking to India Today, advocate Shilpa Dalmia, a POSH consultant practising in Delhi-NCR, said: "The POSH Act was born out of the landmark Vishaka judgement — a legislative response to institutional silence. Weaponising it through false complaints doesn't just harm the accused; it erodes the very institutional trust the law was designed to build. Misuse is not a loophole problem, it is a credibility crisis."

Advocate Avijit Sharma also told India Today that the statutory framework lacks sufficient teeth to deal with situations where a complaint is conclusively found by the ICC to be false, fabricated or maliciously motivated.

"While Rule 10 touches upon action for false complaints, it defers entirely to varying internal service rules, leaving the law without a uniform, stringent mechanism to penalise an erring complainant. This legislative lacuna makes the Act highly vulnerable to tactical misuse. Frequently, the sheer stigma of an ongoing enquiry compels falsely accused professionals to resign simply to avoid permanent professional ruin, while the malicious complainant continues to enjoy a position of advantage," Sharma said, adding that the law needs to be revisited to "ensure balancing the scales of justice."

Shilpa Shinde's podcast confession has created an uproar, but the question remains: Will she face any legal consequences? Or will infamy and public discussion have enough consequences in themselves?

- Ends