Introduction:

In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural discipline under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (commonly known as the POSH Act), the Bombay High Court, in Dr. Shyam Bihari v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 11696 of 2025], delivered a decisive judgment on the limits of challenging the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe dismissed a petition filed by a male employee who had been found guilty of sexual harassment by the ICC of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL). The Court underscored that once an employee has voluntarily participated in an inquiry conducted by a duly constituted ICC, they cannot later challenge its validity merely because the outcome was unfavourable. The judgment reaffirms that procedural objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity and not after the process concludes against one’s interest, thereby upholding the sanctity of workplace inquiry mechanisms and reinforcing the integrity of the POSH framework.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, Dr. Shyam Bihari, an employee of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), challenged the inquiry findings of the ICC that found him guilty of sexual harassment. He sought to quash the report on the ground that the committee was not properly constituted in accordance with Sections 4 and 11 of the POSH Act, 2013. Dr. Bihari contended that the ICC had been improperly formed because one of its members, Respondent No. 1, was allegedly a neighbour of the father of the complainant woman. He claimed that this proximity created a likelihood of bias and influence, compromising the fairness of the proceedings. Further, he argued that the inquiry report was procedurally defective and that the ICC lacked jurisdiction due to its improper constitution. The petitioner maintained that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and bias, and that the committee’s findings could not be sustained in law. Additionally, he argued that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, alleging that he was denied adequate opportunity to defend himself and to cross-examine witnesses effectively. Dr. Bihari emphasized that the composition of the ICC did not strictly comply with the requirements of the POSH Act, which mandates inclusion of external members and gender balance to ensure impartiality. He contended that since Respondent No. 1 was allegedly close to the complainant’s family, her presence tainted the objectivity of the inquiry, thereby invalidating the entire process. Moreover, the petitioner insisted that the ICC’s findings had been accepted by the employer without an independent review, amounting to a violation of his right to appeal and his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He sought the intervention of the High Court to quash both the ICC report and the subsequent disciplinary action, asserting that the entire proceeding was null and void due to a defective foundation.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, represented by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) and the members of the Internal Complaints Committee, opposed the petition, asserting that the inquiry was conducted in strict compliance with the POSH Act, 2013, and the NPCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1996. They contended that the petitioner had voluntarily participated in the inquiry from start to finish without raising any objections regarding the composition or functioning of the ICC. The respondents emphasized that the petitioner was served with all relevant notices, given full opportunity to present his case, and allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The respondents further stated that the allegation of bias against Respondent No. 1 was an afterthought raised only after the petitioner received an unfavourable outcome. They clarified that Respondent No. 1’s alleged acquaintance with the complainant’s father’s neighbour was too remote and speculative to constitute real or apprehended bias. The respondents argued that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to waiver and acquiescence since he failed to raise any objection at the time of inquiry. Citing the principle of estoppel, they contended that a party cannot challenge the validity of a process after willingly submitting to it and only upon receiving an adverse result. Furthermore, the respondents relied on Section 18 of the POSH Act, which provides for an appeal mechanism against the ICC’s findings, arguing that the petitioner failed to exhaust this statutory remedy. They also contended that the ICC report was based on sufficient evidence and supported by detailed reasoning, following the principles of natural justice. The respondents maintained that the inquiry was transparent, fair, and in accordance with the law. They concluded that the petition was frivolous, intended merely to delay disciplinary action, and prayed for its dismissal.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After carefully hearing both sides and examining the record, the Bombay High Court, through its Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, held that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal defect in the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee. The Court noted that the ICC was properly constituted under Section 4 of the POSH Act, with the requisite members including an external member as mandated by law. It observed that the petitioner had actively and voluntarily participated in the inquiry proceedings, cross-examined witnesses, and submitted his written defence without ever objecting to the composition of the committee. The Court emphasized that participation without protest implies waiver of any right to later challenge the process. Referring to the doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel, the Bench observed that “the participation of the Petitioner in the said inquiry without demur gives an impression of the Petitioner having waived his right to object to the constitution of Respondent No. 2 and having acquiesced in the constitution of Respondent No. 2. Having received an unfavourable result in the said Inquiry, the Petitioner is estopped from questioning the constitution of Respondent No. 2.” The Court held that objections to the validity of the ICC’s composition cannot be entertained at a belated stage, especially after the petitioner has taken full advantage of the proceedings when the outcome could have potentially favoured him.

The Bench further stated that the materials on record clearly indicated that the ICC complied with the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards under the NPCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1996. It observed that there was no procedural irregularity or violation of the POSH Act in the inquiry. The judges underlined that an ICC inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding designed to ensure workplace safety and that its findings cannot be lightly interfered with unless there is a manifest error of law, violation of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction — none of which was established in the present case. On the issue of alleged bias, the Court found the petitioner’s claims to be baseless and speculative. It held that mere proximity or social acquaintance between a member and a complainant’s relative cannot be presumed to create bias unless supported by concrete evidence of prejudice. The Court reiterated that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the POSH Act, which he had failed to avail. Consequently, the High Court refused to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter where an effective alternative remedy existed.

The Court also highlighted the underlying principle of fairness embedded in the POSH Act, which aims to maintain the delicate balance between protecting women employees from harassment and ensuring that the accused receives a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court observed that the ICC in this case had acted within its jurisdiction, given adequate opportunity to both parties, and followed procedural propriety. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the inquiry was biased, pointing out that the ICC’s findings were based on documentary and oral evidence. Justice Ghuge and Justice Bhobe observed that “material placed on record indicates Respondent No. 2 complied with the principles of natural justice as also with the other requirements of the service rules.” The Court further stated that procedural technicalities cannot be used as a tool to undermine the integrity of workplace grievance redressal mechanisms established under the POSH Act.

Reaffirming the purpose of the POSH Act, the Court observed that its intent is to create safe working environments and ensure prompt redressal of sexual harassment complaints. It cautioned that employees found guilty through due process cannot later evade responsibility by raising belated technical objections to the composition of the committee. The Bench concluded that allowing such challenges would defeat the objective of the law and demoralize genuine complainants. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the formation of the ICC cannot be questioned after receiving an unfavourable result. The judgment thus reinforces the sanctity and procedural finality of ICC inquiries while underscoring the principle that objections must be timely and bona fide.

The decision serves as an important precedent for future disputes under the POSH Act by affirming that procedural challenges to ICC constitution cannot be used as an afterthought to escape accountability. It sends a clear message to all employees that participation in an inquiry implies acceptance of its legitimacy and that objections, if any, must be raised promptly. By upholding the validity of the ICC’s constitution and findings, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed its faith in the POSH framework as a vital instrument for ensuring workplace safety, fairness, and gender equality.