Section 8: Grants and audit

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

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 8

Section 8 establishes the public finance, appropriation, and statutory audit framework for the Local Committee, providing for parliamentary grants to State Governments, designated State disbursement agencies, and mandatory audit oversight by the Accountant General to ensure financial sustainability and fiscal integrity in informal sector POSH redressal.

  • Parliamentary Appropriation and Central Grant Mechanism: Section 8(1) authorizes the Central Government, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, to make grants of such sums of money to State Governments as deemed fit, earmarked specifically for paying fees and allowances to Local Committee members under Section 7(4).
  • Designated State Implementation Agency and Fund Routing: Section 8(2) and (3) empower the State Government to designate or establish an agency to receive Central grants and disburse required funds to District Officers to cover the operational expenditures and sitting fees of Local Committees across all districts.
  • Compulsory Audit Oversight by the State Accountant General: Section 8(4) mandates that accounts of the designated agency must be maintained and audited in such manner as prescribed in consultation with the Accountant General (AG) of the State, and audited accounts alongside the auditor's report must be formally furnished to the State Government.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Initiative for Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1361): The Supreme Court observed that the chronic non-allocation and non-disbursement of grants under Section 8 had paralyzed Local Committees across the country, holding that leaving statutory committees starved of funds makes the POSH Act an illusion for informal women workers; ordered States to establish nodal agencies and disburse budgeted funds immediately.
  • Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) 14 SCC 566: The Supreme Court underscored that state institutions cannot evade their affirmative duties under POSH by citing financial constraints, ruling that adequate secretarial assistance, budgetary allowances, and functional infrastructure must be provided to inquiry bodies.
  • Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1: Affirmed the settled constitutional principle that where a statute creates an affirmative regulatory framework financed by public revenue and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General / Accountant General, administrative non-implementation or fund withholding is subject to strict judicial review.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When representing NGOs, Local Committee members, or informal workers facing a stalled inquiry due to lack of administrative funds or unpaid sitting allowances, invoke Section 8 read with the Supreme Court's mandate in Initiative for Inclusion Foundation. File an administrative representation before the Principal Secretary (WCD) and, if unheeded, approach the High Court under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus directing release of budgetary grants and audit compliance.