The National Commission for Women (NCW) has submitted a 50-page fact-finding report to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis confirming serious allegations of sexual harassment, stalking, religious intimidation, workplace bullying and POSH Act violations at the Nashik unit of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), intensifying pressure on the company as the Special Investigation Team (SIT) continues its probe into multiple FIRs linked to the case, as reported in The New Indian Express.
The NCW said it had taken suo motu cognisance of complaints made by several women employees at the TCS Nashik office and constituted a fact-finding committee under the direction of NCW Chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar. The committee comprised retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Sadhna Jadhav, former Haryana DGP B.K. Sinha, Supreme Court advocate Monika Arora and NCW senior coordinator Lilabati. The panel visited Nashik on April 18 and 19, where it interacted with victims, members of the POSH Internal Committee, police officials and other witnesses before preparing a report containing over 25 recommendations.
According to the report, the committee found what it described as a “deeply disturbing and toxic workplace environment” marked by “pervasive sexual harassment” and abuse of authority. The report stated that the accused had effectively taken control of the TCS Nashik office and allegedly targeted “young and vulnerable girls”, subjecting them to sexual, emotional and mental harassment. The committee said complainants had faced sexual harassment and attempts of molestation.
The report also documented allegations of religious intimidation and anti-Hindu commentary inside the workplace. According to the findings, female employees were allegedly bullied through repeated denigration of Hindu mythology, beliefs, traditions and practices, while being told that Islam was a “far superior religion” to Hinduism. The committee observed that repeated anti-religious commentary created a coercive atmosphere, particularly affecting younger employees, including members of Generation Z.
The NCW further described the case as a “typical case of sexual harassment at the workplace” involving stalking, demeaning comments, humiliating conduct and sustained mental harassment. Women employees allegedly feared lodging complaints because of social pressure, stigma and fear of professional retaliation. The report stated that employees who raised their voice risked transfer, termination and other professional consequences.
The committee alleged that the Nashik office was effectively controlled by individuals identified as Danish, Tausif and Raza Memon, while naming Ashwini Chainani as having allegedly endorsed the conduct “through her silence and insensitivity”. According to the findings, employees lacked confidence in the system and feared repercussions if they complained.
The report also flagged major compliance failures under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The committee stated there was “zero compliance” with the POSH Act at the Nashik unit. It found that the Internal Committee for Pune and Nashik offices was common, which it said violated legal requirements. The panel further noted that there were no employee awareness programmes, no orientation sessions for Internal Committee members and no visible POSH-related communication within the office.
The committee also criticised the functioning of the Internal Committee, stating there was “no expression of empathy or sympathy” for affected female employees and highlighted failures under Section 19(C) of the POSH Act. It termed the situation not merely a compliance lapse but a broader “governance deficit”.
Among the infrastructural failures highlighted by the panel was the absence of functional CCTV surveillance. The report stated that CCTV cameras installed at the office were non-functional, raising concerns over workplace monitoring and employee safety.
The NCW recommended strict enforcement of Sections 19, 25 and 26 of the POSH Act, stronger grievance redressal mechanisms, witness protection measures under the Witness Protection Act, 2017, and safeguards to ensure complainants do not suffer professionally for filing complaints. The report also suggested examination of offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 75, 78, 79, 299 and 68(a), including provisions dealing with deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Nashik TCS Case and Nida Khan Arrest Update:
Nida was in police custody till today and, following her interrogation, the Nashik Road Court has sent her to 14 days of judicial custody. She has now been moved to Nashik Road Central Jail.
A 50-page report on the matter was… pic.twitter.com/e8YSCHnswM
— Subhi Vishwakarma (@subhi_karma) May 11, 2026
Meanwhile, in a major development in the criminal investigation, accused Nida Khan was on Monday remanded to 14 days judicial custody by a Nashik court after her police custody ended. Since the police did not seek further custody, the court sent her to Nashik Road Central Jail.
Khan had been arrested on 7 May 2026 from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar after allegedly remaining absconding following the emergence of complaints from employees of the TCS Nashik unit. She has been booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for sexual harassment and defamation, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant, a Scheduled Caste woman, alleged coercion, forced religious conversion, molestation, mental harassment and hurting of religious sentiments.
The Special Investigation Team is currently probing nine FIRs connected to the case, including one registered at Deolali Camp police station and eight at Mumbai Naka police station. Investigators are examining allegations of exploitation, attempted forced conversion, molestation, workplace intimidation and religious harassment.
Khan had earlier sought anticipatory bail after being named in the Deolali Camp FIR, claiming innocence and citing her pregnancy. However, the sessions court rejected her plea on 2 May 2026, observing that there appeared to be a “systematic plan” to influence the complainant.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
