Natural Justice - The foundation of inquiries under POSH Act

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “POSH Act”) read with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (the “POSH Framework”), governs the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment complaints raised by women at workplaces in India. The POSH Framework lays down the mechanism for inquiry into such complaints by the Internal Committee (the “IC”) constituted under the POSH Framework. The POSH Framework further mandates that every inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the ‘principles of natural justice’. Yet, the POSH Framework does not provide a definition of ‘natural justice’, a gap which has been sought to be bridged by Indian Courts through a number of decisions.

Simply put, principles of ‘natural justice’ refer to the basic standards of procedural fairness that should guide any decision-making process affecting a person’s rights or interests. Since the IC performs a quasi-judicial function when it investigates complaints alleging sexual harassment, and makes findings, it must follow these standards throughout the inquiry process. At its heart, natural justice rests on two well-established principles: (i) audi alteram partem (hear the other side); and (ii) nemo judex in causa sua (no person shall be a judge in their own cause).

This article outlines the principal natural justice safeguards that an IC must uphold during a POSH inquiry. These safeguards are not merely technical; they determine whether the process is perceived as credible by the parties, the employer and, where challenged, by a court. A fair inquiry must balance protection of complainants and witnesses with the respondent’s right to adequate notice, disclosure and opportunity to defend themselves.

Impartiality and freedom from bias

The IC must be impartial and free from bias or conflicts of interest. A conflict may arise where an IC member has a personal relationship with either party, a reporting relationship, prior involvement in the facts, or any other connection that may compromise neutrality. Such a member should recuse themselves. In M Rajendran v. M. Daisyrani and Ors. (2018), the Madras High Court held that even a reasonable apprehension of bias, such as where most IC members were subordinates of the accused, could justify reconstitution of the IC.

Composition of the IC, and the external member as a safeguard against bias

The POSH framework requires the IC to include a presiding officer, at least two employee members and one external member. The external member is a statutory safeguard for independence and neutrality, and their presence in the quorum helps reduce institutional bias. In Punjab and Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar (2020), the Supreme Court recognised that the external member provides an independent voice and assists the Committee. This requirement is therefore substantive, not ornamental.

Right to be notified of allegations

The respondent must be notified of the allegations and given a fair opportunity to respond. The POSH Act requires the IC to provide a copy of the complaint within seven working days and allow a written response. The allegations must be clear enough to enable an effective defence. In Vineeth V.V. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. (2024), the Kerala High Court quashed an IC report because the complaint and supporting documents had not been served on the respondent, holding this to be a violation of Rule 7 and natural justice.

Equal opportunity to present evidence and right to cross-examination 

Both complainant and respondent must have a fair opportunity to present their case, produce evidence, submit witnesses and respond to adverse material. This includes disclosure of evidence and witness statements, and a fair opportunity to contradict them. In LS Sibu v. Air India (2016), the Kerala High Court held that an IC inquiry is a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry and that the respondent must be able to respond to statements made against them. However, cross-examination in POSH proceedings must be balanced and context-sensitive; written questionnaires or moderated questioning may be used where direct oral questioning may be intimidating, as recognised in Ashok Kumar v. University of Delhi & Ors. (2017), relying on Prof. Bidyug Chakraborty v. Delhi University & Ors. (2009).

Confidentiality and protection of the identity of the parties 

Confidentiality is central to the fairness of a POSH inquiry. Section 16 of the POSH Act restricts disclosure of the complaint, party and witness identities, inquiry proceedings, recommendations and action taken. In P v. A and Ors. (2022), the Bombay High Court emphasised the importance of protecting party identity and restricting personally identifiable information. While confidentiality protects complainants, witnesses and respondents from stigma or retaliation, it must coexist with the respondent’s right to know and answer the material relied upon against them.

Conduct of the inquiry: Ensuring that the process is not hostile 

The IC’s conduct during the inquiry must not be aggressive, hostile or intimidating. A hostile environment may itself vitiate the fairness of proceedings. In Delhi University v. Bidyug Chakraborty (2017), the Delhi High Court affirmed that the inquiry procedure should allow freedom of expression and an atmosphere free from intimidation for both sides. The IC should therefore moderate questioning, control the tone of hearings and prevent either party from using the process to humiliate or pressure the other.

The IC must also avoid undue haste. In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), the Supreme Court criticised “whirlwind proceedings” that compromised due process and the accused’s right to a fair hearing.

Documentation: A complete inquiry record 

Proper documentation is another key component of natural justice. Statements, documents, evidence and hearing minutes should be accurately recorded and preserved. The IC’s findings must be based only on material forming part of the inquiry record, and parties should have access to evidence relied upon against them. In Union of India v. Dilip Paul (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that disciplinary findings must rest on evidence on record. A clear record protects the parties and helps demonstrate how the IC reached its conclusions.

The duty to render reasoned findings (speaking order)

Natural justice also requires the IC to record clear and reasoned findings. The report under Section 13 should show that conclusions are based on evidence and applicable law, not assumptions or irrelevant considerations. In Union of India v. Dilip Paul (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over factual findings unless they are unsupported by evidence, perverse or affected by violation of natural justice.

Proportionality of the recommended action 

The IC’s recommendations must satisfy proportionality. The consequences recommended should match the gravity of misconduct proved and should be neither meaningless nor excessive. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999), the Supreme Court upheld dismissal for sexual harassment as proportionate to the gravity of the conduct.

Sharing of findings and the opportunity to make representations 

After completing the inquiry, the IC must share its findings with the parties and allow representations before final recommendations are made to management, as required by the second proviso to Section 11(1). This gives parties a final opportunity to be heard before findings are acted upon.

Natural justice is not a procedural formality in POSH proceedings; it is the foundation of a legitimate inquiry. A compliant inquiry is one that is impartial, transparent, respectful of confidentiality and grounded in procedural fairness. Since an IC inquiry can have serious consequences for both the complainant and the respondent, the process must inspire confidence that each party was heard, that relevant material was considered, and that the outcome was reached through a fair and reasoned assessment.

Courts generally do not interfere with IC findings where the process is fair, evidence-based and reasoned. However, decisions such as Aureliano Fernandes (2023), Vineeth V.V. (2024) and M. Rajendran (2018) show that courts will intervene where bias, lack of notice, undue haste or other procedural failures undermine fairness. For employers and IC members, the practical lesson is that every stage of the inquiry must be carefully structured: the IC should be properly constituted, parties must receive adequate notice and disclosure, hearings must be conducted without intimidation, and findings must be supported by the record. When these safeguards are followed, the POSH inquiry is more likely to withstand judicial scrutiny and serve its intended purpose of providing a fair, credible and effective redressal mechanism.

About the authors: Anjali Menon is a Partner, Vibhuti Tyagi is a Senior Associate and Namratha MN is an Associate at Poovayya & Co.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.