Online Registration

ISO 9001:2015

International Journal of Innovations & Research Analysis (IJIRA) [ Vol. 6 | No. 3(II) | July - September, 2026 ]

PoSH and POCSO: Understanding the Boundary and the Intersection in Educational Institutions

Dr. Shaily Gupta

Schools, colleges, and universities have a unique status under the laws of India dealing with sexual safety. A school, college, or university is an institution which acts as an educational institute, a workplace, and also an institution which has a relationship of authority, trust, dependency, and vulnerability among its members. Thus, a sexual misconduct accusation in an educational institution can trigger various legal regimes on the basis of the age, gender, status, nature of the alleged misconduct, and the relationship of the parties involved. The two important pieces of legislation in this regard are PoSH Act, 2013 and POCSO Act, 2012. Although both acts deal with sexual misconduct, the scope, objectives, process, reporting obligations, and ramifications under the two Acts are inherently distinct. PoSH is a preventive and redressal legislation for the workplace which seeks to protect women from sexual harassment at their places of work, while POCSO is a gender-neutral criminal legislation that protects every child below the age of eighteen from certain sexual crimes. The difference becomes important when a child student makes allegations of sexual misconduct by the teacher or any other staff member, or sexual harassment of a female student. Analysis of the two statutes through doctrinal research of relevant regulations and judicial rulings from India will be carried out to explore the demarcation line as well as the point of convergence between the two. This study aims to prove that the formation of the Internal Committee or an institutional disciplinary body cannot replace statutory reporting under POCSO. Equally, child-protection mechanisms cannot displace independent workplace obligations under PoSH. The paper proposes an Integrated Institutional Safeguarding Model based on legal triage, mandatory reporting, competent statutory mechanisms, immediate protective measures, confidentiality, natural justice, professional-boundary regulation, capacity building, and periodic safeguarding audits.

Gupta, S. (2026). PoSH and POCSO: Understanding the Boundary and the Intersection in Educational Institutions. International Journal of Innovations & Research Analysis, 06(03(II)), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.62823/IJIRA/06.3(II).9562
  1. Belur, J., & Singh, B. B. (2015). Child sexual abuse and the law in India: A commentary. Crime Science, 4, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-015-0037-2
  2. Handa, R. K., & Goswami, S. (2024). The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012: The precincts of the law and judicial expositions. Journal of Victimology and Victim Justice, 7(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/25166069241289287
  3. Manral, I. T., Panjrattan, C., Saini, R. K., Roy, S., & Singh, A. (2023). A multi-speciality approach to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act: A review. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 32(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_169_21
  4. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. (2021). Manual on safety and security of children in schools. Government of India.
  5. University Grants Commission. (2015). University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015. Government of India.

Statutes

  1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, No. 32 of 2012, India.
  2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, India.
  3. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14 of 2013, India.
  4. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, India.

Cases

  1. Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, 2018 INSC 433.
  2. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759.
  3. Attorney General for India v. Satish, 2021 INSC 762; (2022) 5 SCC 545.
  4. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 INSC 527; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 621.
  5. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2017 INSC 658.
  6. Initiatives for Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 927.
  7. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297.
  8. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, 2018 INSC 1192.
  9. Punjab and Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar, Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 2020 (Supreme Court of India, February 25, 2020).
  10. Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546; 2013 INSC 281.
  11. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 INSC 1152.
  12. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.62823/IJIRA/06.3(II).9562

DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.62823/IJIRA/06.3(II).9562

Download Full Paper:

Download