By Vinay Joy, Srishti Ramkrishnan and Tanvi Shetty
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court in a recent case has reaffirmed a crucial principle under India's Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace law. The single judge bench stated that employers cannot create parallel internal mechanisms to determine whether allegations constitute sexual harassment or whether a complaint should be referred to the Internal Committee (IC).
While the judgment arises from the specific facts of the case, its implications extend well beyond them. For employers, particularly multinational corporations (MNCs) that operate in centralised or global investigation frameworks, it serves as a reminder that internal processes must be carefully aligned with India's statutory requirements.
ALSO READ | NCW Calls For Mandatory POSH Audits, Safety Mechanisms; Issues Advisory To States
Case Background
The case of Rasal Singh vs. University of Delhi was centred around complaints received from three assistant professors alleging misconduct and sexual harassment by the Principal of Ramanujan College. Instead of referring the complaints directly to its IC, the University constituted an ad hoc fact-finding committee to examine the allegations.
The committee assessed the complaint, determined that the allegations disclosed sexual harassment under the POSH Act and recommended that the matter be referred to the IC.
Under India's Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), every employer with 10 or more employees must constitute an IC, which is the specialised statutory body exclusively vested with the authority to receive and inquire into complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the Delhi High Court held that this statutory role cannot be displaced by a parallel fact-finding exercise. In this case, the ad hoc committee had effectively undertaken the threshold determination of whether the allegations amounted to sexual harassment-a function reserved exclusively for the IC.
Reasoning Behind the Court's Ruling
The Court emphasised that the POSH Act establishes a carefully designed framework for addressing complaints of sexual harassment, incorporating safeguards relating to confidentiality, due process and inquiry by a specialised body. The IC's role is therefore not merely procedural or recommendatory; it is the statutory authority vested with jurisdiction to conduct such inquiries.
Permitting a parallel pre-IC investigation would undermine this statutory framework by exposing complainants to non-specialised forums. Moreover, the POSH Act provides a time-bound process for addressing such complaints, including a specified limitation period for filing a complaint and defined timelines for the conduct and completion of the inquiry.
Any pre-IC investigations would impact the timeline prescribed under the law. Accordingly, the Court held that the constitution of such an ad hoc fact-finding body outside the statutory framework of the POSH Act was unknown to law and contrary to the scheme of the legislation.
Key Takeaways for Employers
While the recent Delhi HC ruling reiterates the exclusive jurisdiction of the IC over complaints of workplace sexual harassment, it also carries broader implications for employers, particularly MNCs operating in India who rely on centralised forums for addressing all forms of employee grievances and misconduct.
Indian employment law does not prescribe a uniform process for every workplace complaint. Employers generally retain flexibility to design internal investigation procedures, subject to principles of natural justice, contractual obligations, service rules and applicable law.
That flexibility, however, is not absolute. Certain statutes require complaints to be handled through specifically designated bodies or officers.
The POSH Act is one such statute. It mandates that complaints of sexual harassment be received and investigated by the IC, and employers cannot substitute this statutory process with a preliminary or parallel fact-finding mechanism that effectively determines whether sexual harassment has occurred.
Other employment statutes such as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, also contemplate designated grievance redressal mechanisms or complaint officers, although each statute adopts a different framework.
Accordingly, while centralised grievance mechanisms may offer administrative efficiency, they may not satisfy Indian legal requirements where legislation mandates that specific categories of complaints be handled by designated statutory forums or personnel.
A company's employment policies, therefore, should clearly demarcate the categories of complaints that must be directed to statutory bodies or designated officers, and employees and workers should be made aware of these grievance redressal mechanisms/redressal channels.
This is critical for compliance with the POSH Act and for preserving confidentiality, procedural integrity and the sanctity of statutory mechanisms; furthermore, reducing the risk of future legal challenge.
(Vinay Joy and Srishti Ramkrishnan are Partners, and Tanvi Shetty is Associate at Khaitan & Co.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NDTV Profit or its affiliates. Readers are advised to conduct their own research or consult a qualified professional before making any investment or business decisions. NDTV Profit does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented in this article.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
