Introduction:
In RS v. University of Delhi, the Delhi High Court dealt with a significant issue concerning the procedural integrity of inquiries into allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act). The petitioner, who was serving as the Principal of Ramanujan College, Delhi University, approached the Court challenging the constitution of an ad hoc fact-finding committee formed by the university authorities to examine allegations of misconduct, including sexual harassment, made against him by faculty members.
Instead of referring the complaints directly to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), as mandated under the PoSH Act, the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi, constituted a separate fact-finding body. This committee conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted a report concluding that the allegations were serious and warranted further action. Based on this report, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
Aggrieved by this sequence of events, the petitioner challenged both the constitution of the ad hoc committee and the consequential suspension order, contending that the entire process was contrary to the statutory framework of the PoSH Act. The case thus raised an important legal question: whether an employer can establish a parallel or preliminary fact-finding mechanism prior to referring a complaint of sexual harassment to the ICC.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the matter, examined the statutory scheme of the PoSH Act and the role of specialized bodies like the ICC and the Local Committee. The judgment ultimately addressed not only the legality of such ad hoc committees but also the broader implications for fairness, confidentiality, and procedural safeguards in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the constitution of the ad hoc fact-finding committee was fundamentally flawed and violated the express provisions of the PoSH Act. He argued that the Act provides a clear and exhaustive mechanism for handling complaints of sexual harassment, which includes the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or, in certain cases, a Local Committee. These bodies are specifically mandated to inquire into such complaints, and any deviation from this statutory framework is impermissible.
The petitioner emphasized that the language of the PoSH Act is mandatory in nature, using the term “shall” to indicate that complaints of sexual harassment must be referred to the ICC for inquiry. By constituting an ad hoc committee, the university authorities bypassed this mandatory requirement and created a parallel mechanism that is not recognized under the law.
It was further argued that the ad hoc committee lacked the statutory safeguards and expertise required to handle sensitive complaints of sexual harassment. Unlike the ICC, which is composed of trained members and includes provisions for confidentiality and victim protection, the ad hoc committee operated without any legal framework or procedural guidelines. This, the petitioner contended, compromised the fairness and integrity of the inquiry process.
The petitioner also challenged the suspension order, arguing that it was based solely on the findings of the ad hoc committee, which itself was illegally constituted. He submitted that any action taken on the basis of such an invalid process is liable to be set aside.
Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about violation of principles of natural justice. He argued that the ad hoc committee conducted its inquiry without providing him a fair opportunity to present his case, and that the absence of procedural safeguards rendered the entire process arbitrary and unjust.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:
The respondents, including the University of Delhi and its officials, defended the constitution of the ad hoc committee as a preliminary step taken to assess the seriousness of the allegations. They argued that the purpose of the committee was not to replace the ICC but to conduct an initial fact-finding exercise to determine whether the allegations warranted formal inquiry.
The respondents contended that the university, as an employer, has the inherent authority to take administrative measures to ensure a safe and secure working environment. In this context, the formation of a fact-finding committee was presented as a reasonable and necessary step to evaluate the situation before initiating formal proceedings under the PoSH Act.
It was further argued that the suspension of the petitioner was an administrative action taken in the interest of maintaining discipline and preventing interference with the inquiry process. The respondents maintained that such action is within the powers of the employer and does not necessarily depend on the findings of the ICC.
The respondents also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and required immediate attention. They argued that the ad hoc committee’s report provided sufficient basis for taking interim measures, including suspension, pending further inquiry.
However, the respondents did not dispute that the PoSH Act designates the ICC as the primary body for inquiring into complaints of sexual harassment. Instead, they sought to justify the ad hoc committee as a supplementary mechanism rather than a substitute.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court, in a comprehensive and reasoned judgment, held that the constitution of an ad hoc fact-finding committee to examine allegations of sexual harassment prior to referring the complaint to the ICC is contrary to the statutory scheme of the PoSH Act.
At the outset, the Court emphasized that the PoSH Act is a complete and self-contained code for addressing complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. It provides a detailed framework for the constitution of specialized bodies, namely the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the Local Committee, which are entrusted with the responsibility of inquiring into such complaints.
The Court noted that the use of the term “shall” in the Act indicates a mandatory obligation to refer complaints to the ICC. Any attempt to create a parallel or preliminary mechanism outside this framework would be inconsistent with the legislative intent.
Justice Kaurav observed that the constitution of an ad hoc committee is “dehors the statutory scheme,” meaning that it exists outside and in violation of the law. The Court held that once the legislature has designated a specific authority to deal with a particular issue, no other body can be constituted to perform the same function, either before or in substitution of the designated authority.
The Court further highlighted the importance of maintaining confidentiality and sensitivity in handling complaints of sexual harassment. It noted that the ICC is specifically designed to provide a safe and supportive environment for victims, with trained members and procedural safeguards. In contrast, an ad hoc committee lacks these features and may expose the complainant to an unsuitable environment.
Another significant concern raised by the Court was the potential for delay and misuse. The Court observed that allowing pre-ICC fact-finding inquiries could lead to unnecessary delays in initiating formal proceedings under the PoSH Act. This, in turn, could result in genuine complaints being kept in abeyance while the ad hoc committee conducts its inquiry.
The Court also pointed out that there is no legal provision governing the constitution, functioning, or timelines of such ad hoc committees. This absence of a regulatory framework raises serious questions about their legitimacy and accountability.
In addition to violating the express provisions of the PoSH Act, the Court held that the creation of such committees also offends the principles of natural justice. The lack of procedural safeguards, coupled with the absence of statutory backing, renders the process arbitrary and unfair.
Consequently, the Court held that the constitution of the ad hoc fact-finding committee in the present case was illegal and unsustainable in law. It declared that any inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the PoSH Act.
While the judgment primarily addressed the legality of the ad hoc committee, it also had implications for the suspension order passed against the petitioner. Since the suspension was based on the findings of an invalid process, it was rendered legally questionable.
The judgment thus reaffirmed the supremacy of statutory mechanisms and underscored the need for strict adherence to the procedural safeguards established under the PoSH Act.