POSH compliance in public sector banks: CIC seeks ‘fair hearing’ from RTI

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has returned an RTI application to the Ministry of Women and Child Development for a fresh decision and directed its first appellate authority to give a fair hearing to an applicant seeking information on the implementation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act in Public Sector Banks.

The complainant, Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury, cited the Supreme Court decision in Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa and argued that the banks had failed to set up internal committees as required by the Sexual Harassment of Women in the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Remediation) Act, 2013.

He sought details of banks registered on the SHe-Box portal, annual returns filed under the law, penalties imposed for non-compliance and court cases involving aggrieved women.

SHe-Box is the central government’s online platform for registering and tracking complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace.

The complainant claimed that the information provided by the Ministry was incomplete and that he had not been heard, even though he had specifically requested it in his first appeal.

The ministry claimed to have provided the information available to it. It said the Ministry of Financial Services is the nodal department for the banking, financial services and insurance sectors and advised the applicant to contact the public information officers of individual banks for specific details.

It also said that its concerned division does not maintain information on annual returns, penalties and litigations relating to individual public sector banks in the required consolidated form.

In a recent order, Information Commissioner PR Ramesh directed the Department’s First Appellate Authority (FAA) to reconsider the appeal after allowing both sides to present their cases and issue a reasoned decision.

The commission noted that the department had said that the first appeal had been disposed of, but a copy of the order had not been recorded.

“Under these circumstances, the Commission is unable to verify the content of the order, which was declared to have been approved by the FAA, or to determine whether appellant’s request for an in-person hearing was considered,” the order said.

The CIC said the first appeal should be decided through a reasoned order addressing the grounds raised by the applicant.

She clarified that she does not express a final opinion on the requested information or on the adequacy of the ministry’s response.

The appeal was remanded to the FAA for a new decision after a fair hearing for both parties. The Commission also asked the Public Information Officer to submit a compliance report.

The applicant can file a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act if he is not satisfied with the decision of the FAA.

Published – 19 Oct 2026 17:28 IST