PoSH Law India Update - May '26 Edition

Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the May '26 edition of PoSH Law India update.

1. Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension Power in PoSH Matters, Bars Stigmatic Orders

   
   

   In the case of Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi (2026 DHC 3449), W.P.(C) 14760/2025, three female assistant professors of Ramanujan College, Delhi University, filed sexual harassment complaints against the college Principal under the PoSH Act. Instead of referring the complaints to the Internal Committee (IC), the University constituted an independent fact-finding committee, which recommended action against the Principal, leading to his suspension.

   
   

   The issue before the Court arose, Whether an employer or university can create a parallel inquiry mechanism outside the IC procedure prescribed under the PoSH Act.

   
   

   The Delhi High Court held that the PoSH Act provides a complete statutory mechanism through the IC and no parallel inquiry can be conducted. The Court quashed the suspension order, observing that the action was based on an unauthorized parallel process.

   
   

2. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Abuse at work 'uncouth', not Sexual Harassment

   
   

   In the case of Abhishek Shah vs. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-36953-2019), a female employee in a Gurugram-based company filed an FIR alleging sexual harassment against the company director after he used the phrase “f*** off” in an email exchange concerning her medical leave and workplace conduct.

   
   

   The issue before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was whether the remark amounted to sexual harassment under the PoSH Act and Section 354A IPC.

   
   

   The Court held that although the language was rude, offensive, and inappropriate, it did not contain any sexual intent or overt sexual element required to constitute sexual harassment, and therefore quashed the FIR.

   
   

3. IC Cannot Recommend Disciplinary Action After Finding No Sexual Harassment

   
   

   In the case of Dr. Mohinder Kumar vs. Chairman, NABARD & Another (2026:BHC-OS:1445-DB), W.P. No. 1635 of 2021, the case arose after a NABARD employee recorded videos of women colleagues allegedly to complain about workplace disturbance. The women employees approached the Internal Complaints Committee, alleging harassment. Although the IC concluded that the conduct did not amount to sexual harassment under the PoSH Act, it still recommended disciplinary action.

   
   

   The Bombay High Court quashed the reprimand order, holding that under Section 13(2) of the PoSH Act, once allegations are not proved, the ICC can only recommend closure and “no action.”