[ PAPER ID: 10843 ] DETERMINING PROCEDURAL PRIORITY WHEN POSH INQUIRIES AND POCSO PROSECUTIONS ARISE FROM THE SAME ALLEGATION

ARTICLE INFO: Date of Submission: Dec 26, 2025, Revised: Jan 08, 2026, Accepted: Jan 14, 2026, CrossRef D.O.I : https://doi.org/10.56815/ijmrr.v5i1.2026.80-96, HOW TO CITE: Kritika (2026). Determining Procedural Priority When Posh Inquiries and Pocso Prosecutions Arise from the Same Allegation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Reviews, 5(1), 80-96.

Abstract

It is common practice in India to enforce both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 when accusations of sexual harassment involving minors are made in a workplace, especially an educational institution. To protect children under the age of 18, the POCSO Act establishes a criminal framework with mandatory reporting, child-friendly procedures, and stringent penalties; the POSH Act creates an internal inquiry mechanism focused on workplace discipline and victim redress through Internal Committees. There is no legislative provision that gives preference to one law over the other, even when there are overlaps in situations like these (e.g., when a minor student accuses an employee of misbehavior). Because they are separate processes with different goals— administrative remedies under POSH and criminal prosecution under POCSO—the courts have consistently held that the two processes run concurrently but separately. Courts have repeatedly ruled that results in one forum do not necessarily bind or remain binding in the other, due to varying standards of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of probability), and Section 28 of the POSH Act makes it clear that it is not disparaging vis-à-vis other laws. This article outlines recommended practices for institutions to follow to provide victim protection, procedural fairness, and compliance without conflict, by analyzing the legal differences, overlaps, and practical consequences of concurrent proceedings. It finds that victim-centric goals are best served by advancing both processes simultaneously, but that coordinated evidence processing and child-sensitive techniques are necessary to reduce the likelihood of conflicts.