The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that complaints of sexual harassment filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, cannot be rejected at the threshold merely on the ground of delay without first examining the reasons for such delay and the surrounding factual circumstances.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery made these observations while setting aside the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) against an Associate Professor of Astrophysics at the Harish Chandra Research Institute (HCRI), Prayagraj, and remitting the matter to the committee for a fresh inquiry in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under the POSH Act.
The Court observed that although the complaints referred to several alleged incidents of sexual harassment, specific dates of occurrence had not been placed on record before it. However, the absence of specific dates or the existence of delay could not justify rejection of the complaints at the threshold.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Court noted that the issue of limitation under the POSH Act was ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact. In appropriate cases, delayed complaints may require consideration of the surrounding circumstances before being rejected.
The Court further observed that victims of workplace sexual harassment often do not report incidents immediately, particularly where they are working under the supervision or authority of the person against whom allegations have been levelled, as doing so may adversely affect their academic or professional future.
The complaints in the present case were filed by women research scholars who had completed their PhD under the petitioner, an Associate Professor at HCRI. Following an inquiry, the Internal Complaints Committee held the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommended disciplinary action. Acting on the report, the institute censured the professor and restrained him from accepting any female students as PhD scholars or appointing women as research assistants.
The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action before the High Court, contending that the complaints had been filed beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 9 of the POSH Act. He further argued that copies of the complaints, statements of the complainants and witnesses, and other material relied upon by the ICC had not been furnished to him. It was also contended that he had been denied an effective opportunity to defend himself, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Upon examining the record, the High Court found that the ICC report contained no indication that copies of the complaints, witness statements or supporting documents had been supplied to the petitioner. The report was also silent on whether the petitioner had sought cross-examination of the complainants or witnesses and, if so, how such requests had been considered. The Court held that the inquiry had not adhered to the mandatory procedural safeguards contemplated under the POSH Act.
The Bench observed that while the Court was not aware of the exact dates on which the complaints had been submitted before the ICC, the committee was under a statutory obligation to examine the period to which the allegations related, ascertain the actual date of filing of each complaint, and consider whether the complainants had furnished sufficient explanation for approaching the ICC beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Only after such an exercise could the committee determine whether the complaints deserved to be rejected on limitation or proceeded with on merits.
Holding that the inquiry suffered from procedural irregularities and non-compliance with the statutory framework governing investigation under the POSH Act, the High Court quashed the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner and remitted the matter to the Internal Complaints Committee for a fresh inquiry.
The Bench directed the ICC to first decide whether the complaints were maintainable despite the delay by considering the explanation offered by the complainants for the belated approach. If the committee found sufficient grounds to entertain the complaints, it was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act, while ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and affording both parties a fair opportunity to present their case.
The post Allahabad High Court orders fresh ICC inquiry against professor, says delayed POSH complaints cannot be rejected mechanically appeared first on India Legal.