The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the procedural integrity of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the PoSH Act. The court held that the constitution of parallel or preliminary fact-finding bodies to examine sexual misconduct allegations before referring them to an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is illegal and “outside the statutory scheme.”
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav clarified that the PoSH Act provides a “self-contained mechanism” and that any deviation from this prescribed path offends both the law and the principles of natural justice.
The ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by a Principal of a Delhi University college. In 2025, three assistant professors leveled allegations of sexual misconduct against the Principal. Following these complaints, the Deputy Registrar of Delhi University established a fact-finding committee to investigate the claims. This committee later recommended that the matter be referred to the ICC.
The petitioner was subsequently suspended in September 2025. He approached the High Court to challenge both the constitution of the preliminary committee and the legality of his suspension order.
The court emphasized that once the legislature has designated the ICC or Local Committee as the sole authority for inquiring into such complaints, no other body can perform a gatekeeping role.
“The creation of a fact-finding committee in order to determine whether a given complaint is to be sent to the ICC/Local Committee is de hors the provisions of the PoSH Act, and impermissible in law,” Justice Kaurav observed.
The court further noted that the employer’s role at the inquiry stage is limited to administrative decisions—specifically determining if the employee’s continued presence might prejudice the investigation or harm public interest—rather than conducting independent preliminary adjudications.
While acknowledging that an employer has an “inherent right” to suspend an employee pending an inquiry, the court warned against using “stigmatic” language in suspension orders.
The court found that the suspension order in this case contained “editorial judgments” about the petitioner’s character, effectively punishing him before the inquiry concluded. The order used phrases like “serious misconduct and harassment,” which the court found deeply prejudicial.
“No person deserves to be met with such treatment, while an inquiry is pending in relation to its conduct/actions,” the court stated. “But for this, if the bare words of the suspension order itself become a punishment for a given accused… the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence shall get compromised.”
The High Court set aside the suspension order, ruling that it was legally unsustainable due to its stigmatic nature and the improper use of a preliminary fact-finding body. However, the court clarified that the college remains at liberty to pass a fresh suspension order, provided it adheres to legal standards and avoids prejudicial language.
