Workplace diversity and inclusion: India’s evolving approach towards embracing DEI

Gerald Manoharan

JSA, Bengaluru, Karnataka

gerald@jsalaw.com

Sonakshi Das

JSA, Bengaluru, Karnataka

sonakshi.das@jsalaw.com

Introduction

Over the past few decades, the concept of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has shifted from a symbolic aspiration to a defined benchmark for evaluating an employer’s credibility, culture and compliance maturity, both by their own workforce and by regulators, stakeholders and the broader public. In the Indian context, while DEI began as a policy-driven initiative, it has since evolved into a set of codified legal obligations across gender, disability, pregnancy and health status.

While several organisations have made formal DEI commitments, reflected in internal policies, leadership statements and public disclosures; and have taken steps towards inclusive hiring, maternity support, accessibility infrastructure, reasonable accommodation and gender-diverse leadership, the practical integration of DEI into workforce systems remains uneven.

As regulatory scrutiny deepens and India’s workforce becomes younger and more socially aware, the question is no longer whether DEI matters – but whether it works in practice. This article examines India’s evolving DEI compliance landscape, highlights compliance and cultural gaps across sectors and explores operational challenges and strategies employers must navigate to embed inclusion in both form and function.

Legal framework on DEI in India

Globally, there has been a perceivable shift from symbolic DEI efforts to measurable outcomes, with inclusion now seen as a matter of accountability, not just ethics – a trend that is beginning to influence policy thinking in many jurisdictions, including India. India’s DEI regime is defined by identity-specific legislations rather than a unified inclusion code. Anchoring the statutory landscape is the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (the ‘POSH Act’), a legislation born out of judicial intervention and an evolving understanding of safety of women in the workplace. It mandates the constitution of Internal Committees (ICs) at every office or unit with ten or more employees to address concerns and complaints related to sexual harassment, implementation of a formal policy, conducting awareness programmes/workshops and reporting obligations. Importantly, the statute adopts a broad and progressive view of ‘workplace’ – extending its coverage to incidents that occur outside office premises but have a demonstrable impact on the work environment.

By doing so, it recognises that workplace harm is not always confined to physical space, and that ideology, power dynamics and culture can shape an employee’s perception of safety and dignity at work. In a recent move towards greater regulatory alignment, the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which is the Indian government ministry primarily concerned with administration of companies in India, has mandated disclosures regarding sexual harassment to be reported in the annual directors’ report – bringing workplace inclusion into the core of corporate governance.

Complementing this is the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (the ‘MB Act’), which – though enacted well before the rise of DEI as a formal workplace priority – has come to serve as a foundational statute for protecting rights of women navigating motherhood while in employment. It guarantees statutory entitlements including paid maternity leave, nursing breaks, a medical bonus and access to creche facilities – each framed not as a discretionary benefit but as a compulsory right.

Building on this foundation are three identity-specific legislations that extend DEI mandate beyond gender and maternity – embedding structural protections for disability, gender identity and health status. Leading this evolution is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (the ‘RPWD Act’) which mandates publishing and registering Equal Opportunity Policies (EOP), accessible infrastructure and reasonable accommodation. Similarly, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 (‘Transgender Persons Act’) bars discrimination throughout the employment lifecycle and mandates affirmative inclusion through hiring practices, grievance redressal mechanisms and workplace design, including gender-neutral facilities. Completing this triad is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act 2017 (the ‘HIV and AIDS Act’), which enshrines non-discrimination and confidentiality rights, requiring model workplace policies to be adopted by employers. Together, these laws represent a composite framework that holds employers accountable for specific, actionable commitments – increasingly subject to legal and social scrutiny.

Gaps in practice: persistent shortfalls and organisational impact

Despite a robust statutory framework, DEI implementation across Indian workplaces remains uneven. Some of the key gaps are not merely procedural lapses, but carry real consequences for employee wellbeing, organisational credibility and legal defensibility.

• One of the most visible gaps in DEI implementation lies in the inconsistent constitution and functioning of ICs under the POSH Act. Across regional offices and non-headquarter locations, ICs are often either not constituted at all or exist only in name. In the absence of a credible redressal mechanism, employees are left without a safe forum to report concerns. Where sexual harassment does occur, the absence of a functional IC not only deepens the harm but places employers at serious legal and reputational risk.
• A similar disconnect exists in the adoption of required policies (such as EOP) under the RPWD Act, the Transgender Persons Act and the HIV and AIDS Act. Many employers either overlook these obligations entirely or adopt generic templates that lack operational detail. Critical elements such as identified posts, reasonable accommodation protocols and grievance mechanisms are often missing. As a result, legal protections remain confined to paper, while employees – particularly those with disabilities, chronic health conditions or from gender-diverse communities – struggle with visibility and support. In practice, this silence often deters accommodation requests and reinforces exclusion through institutional inaction.
• Even where inclusion is a stated priority, practical barriers often limit the effectiveness of DEI initiatives. Core systems – such as HR software, recruitment portals and performance evaluation tools – frequently support only binary gender categories, making it difficult for transgender and non-binary employees to accurately represent their identity. In many cases, this prompts individuals to select personally unidentifiable options or disengage from the process entirely, undermining both participation and trust.
• Training efforts are another area of concern. While most organisations comply with mandatory prevention of sexual harassment (ie, POSH) training, broader capacity-building on disability inclusion, mental health, unconscious bias and inclusive leadership remains sporadic. Without regular, nuanced training, teams often lack the language, awareness or confidence to identify exclusion or intervene constructively.
• Another major gap is the lack of internal accountability. In many organisations, no single person or team is responsible for driving DEI. There are no set goals, no regular reviews and no integration of inclusion metrics into performance evaluations. As a result, initial momentum often fades, and initiatives stagnate without sustained ownership. Such disconnect between policy framing and implementation practice can leave underrepresented employees feeling excluded or unsupported – driving disengagement and attrition.

As DEI becomes a legal and business priority, companies that do not actively bridge this gap may find themselves out of step – with their workforce, the law, as well as the expectations of an increasingly aware generation of employees.

Judicial view: elevating DEI from policy to enforceable obligation

As India’s legal framework on workplace inclusion becomes more firmly established, courts are making it increasingly clear that DEI is not a matter of goodwill or policy preference – it is a legal obligation. While many organisations have adopted DEI policies, judicial scrutiny is now shifting towards their actual implementation. When there are lapses, employers are being held accountable not just in principle, but through enforceable legal orders and financial consequences.

• Continued judicial momentum is reflected in the enforcement of the POSH Act. Indian courts have repeatedly confirmed that where ICs are not properly constituted, resulting either from absence of an external member or the inclusion of biased or connected individuals, integrity of the redressal process is compromised.^[1] In many such cases, Indian courts have emphasised that an IC is not just a compliance box to tick. It must be a credible, neutral and functioning body that employees can trust. When these conditions are not met, employers may be asked to re-constitute ICs, re-run inquiries and even pay compensation for harm caused.^[2] For employers, this means that simply having a policy or an IC on paper is not sufficient; credibility and functionality are key.
• Judicial interpretation of maternity entitlements has followed a similarly rights-based approach. Courts have consistently reaffirmed that benefits under the MB Act are not discretionary concessions, but legal rights linked to a woman’s health, dignity and equality at workplace. Any attempts by employers to deny maternity leave on procedural or technical grounds – such as the expiry of a contract during pregnancy,^[3] limitations based on the number of childbirths or disputes around custody^[4] – have been firmly set aside as out of step with lived realities. The expectation is that employers approach such cases with empathy and fairness, keeping in mind the broader principles of care, respect and fair treatment.
• Indian courts have also recognised denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination under the RPwD Act^[5] – clarifying that employers must proactively assess, consult and adapt before denying a role. This may include reassigning tasks, adjusting tools or processes or offering flexibility in how the work is performed. Not only disability, but even gender identity has now come under judicial focus. The right to self-identify one’s gender is now recognised as a matter of autonomy and dignity.^[6] This places an affirmative obligation on employers to review internal systems – including identity documentation, HR databases, facilities access and communication protocols – to ensure they accommodate transgender and non-binary employees in a respectful and inclusive manner.

Pathways to implementation: strategies for employers

The path forward for employers lies in practical, day-to-day implementation. Several strategies – rooted in legal obligations and shaped by evolving workplace practices – can support the meaningful integration of DEI across the organisation.

• One of the most foundational measures is assigning clear internal ownership. In many organisations, DEI is positioned as an HR-driven initiative with limited accountability across leadership. This often results in momentum loss after initial policy rollouts. For a sustained and visible outcome, in addition to focused or targeted training for identified sections of workforce, DEI goals should be built into leadership responsibilities. When senior leaders are visibly involved and accountable, it sends a strong message across the organisation and helps build a more inclusive culture from the top down.
• A second area of focus is compliance infrastructure. While constituting ICs, publishing EOPs, and conducting POSH training are baseline requirements under Indian law, employers must move beyond procedural checklists. For instance, ICs must not only be technically constituted but also trained, accessible and demonstrably independent. Likewise, an EOP that exists only on paper, without clear grievance mechanisms, accessibility provisions or awareness efforts offers little practical value. For DEI commitments to translate into real impact, compliance structures must be active, visible and trusted across the organisation.
• Infrastructure, both physical and digital, forms the next layer. Many forms of exclusion are not intentional but arise from outdated systems and unexamined defaults. For example, HR platforms that only allow male or female gender options, office spaces that lack accessible workstations or the absence of gender-neutral restrooms can unintentionally make employees feel excluded. To avoid this, organisations should regularly review their systems – such as recruitment portals, workspace layouts – through an inclusion lens.
• Capacity-building must extend beyond awareness to skill-building. Annual training sessions on the POSH Act or unconscious bias are often insufficient. Instead, employers may consider tailored programmes that equip managers to handle accommodations, respond to microaggressions, support mental health disclosures and lead diverse teams effectively. Initiatives such as peer learning groups, allyship networks and inclusive leadership workshops can help create a strong foundation for everyday inclusion across the organisation.
• Finally, monitoring remains essential to ensuring sustained progress. Setting goals for representation, conducting anonymous inclusion surveys, reviewing attrition data by identity groups and monitoring redressal effectiveness can offer employers a clearer picture of their organisational climate – and help them intervene proactively. Transparent communication of progress – whether through internal updates, or employee forums – strengthens trust and signals commitment.

While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, these pathways offer employers a structured framework for converting DEI from principle to practice. In an environment where inclusion is increasingly being tested not in policy, but in action, organisations that invest in these fundamentals are more likely to lead with example, credibility, resilience and purpose.

Conclusion

Despite the recent and on-going political resistance towards DEI initiatives and implementation goals in countries such as the US, India, however, continues to remain committed to evolving measures around DEI in theory and spirit. While Indian subsidiaries of some global entities having presence in the US appear compelled to reconsider existing policies impacted through global DEI implementation restrictions, the extent of such reconciliation, withdrawal or specific carve-outs of DEI initiatives for India, remains to be tested – particularly considering that these obligations otherwise continue to remain mandated under Indian law.

That said, for Indian employers, DEI is no longer just a statement of values – it is a day-to-day operational responsibility. As legal obligations grow and judicial expectations become more defined, organisations are increasingly being evaluated not by what they say, but by what they do. Policies, handbooks, and public commitments are important, but they are only the starting point. What truly matters is whether DEI principles are reflected in the everyday experiences of employees – across roles, locations and identities. Are ICs active and trusted? Do employees with disabilities receive the adjustments they need to work with dignity? Can individuals represent their gender identity in HR systems without compromise? These are the questions that now define credible DEI.

For HR and business leaders, this means moving beyond checklists and embedding DEI into the core of how organisations are structured, led and measured. The goal is not perfection – but progress that is genuine, transparent and consistent. Ultimately, inclusion is not just about meeting compliance – it is about creating workplaces where every employee has the opportunity to participate fully, safely and authentically. Achieving that will require clarity, commitment, and most of all, consistent action.