Home  /  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013  /  Section 23

Section 23: Appropriate Government to monitor implementation and maintain data

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Section 22 All 30 Sections of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 24

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 23

Section 23 establishes the permanent statutory monitoring and data maintenance mandate of the Appropriate Government, obligating Central and State Governments to oversee the nationwide implementation of the POSH Act and maintain comprehensive empirical repositories of workplace sexual harassment cases.

  • Continuous Statutory Monitoring by Appropriate Government: Imposes an affirmative and non-delegable duty on the Appropriate Government (Central or State) to monitor the implementation of all substantive and procedural provisions of the Act across public and private sectors.
  • Centralized Empirical Data Repository: Explicitly mandates the maintenance of accurate, aggregated data on the total number of complaints filed, inquiries conducted, and cases disposed of across all workplaces within its jurisdiction.
  • Operationalization via Digital Platforms (SHe-Box / State Portals): Encompasses national digital initiatives such as the SHe-Box (Sexual Harassment electronic Box) launched by the Ministry of Women and Child Development to track complaints and monitor institutional response times.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Initiative for Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1361): A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the mandate under Section 23 cannot be fulfilled without centralized, searchable digital dashboards; directed Central and State Governments to maintain updated empirical data on ICs, LCs, and case disposals.
  • Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) 14 SCC 566: The Supreme Court highlighted that systemic apathy stems from government failure to maintain and audit workplace harassment data; ordered government ministries and professional bodies to conduct regular compliance reviews.
  • Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297: Emphasized that State authorities have a positive constitutional duty under Articles 14, 15, and 21 to gather data, oversee Complaints Committees, and ensure that laws protecting women do not remain paper tigers.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In public law litigation and PILs seeking institutional enforcement of POSH, invoke Section 23 to seek a writ of mandamus directing the State to produce its official compliance data; use RTI requests to the MWCD and State Departments to obtain Section 23 data to demonstrate systemic non-compliance by specific PSUs or departments.

Section 22 All 30 Sections of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 24