PoSH Law India Update - October '25 Edition

Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the October '25 edition of PoSH Law India update.

1. Bombay HC: IC Constitution Cannot Be Questioned After Adverse Findings Under PoSH Act
   

   The Bombay High Court has held that an employee who voluntarily participates in IC proceedings under the PoSH Act cannot subsequently challenge the committee’s constitution merely because the findings are adverse. The petitioner had argued that the IC was improperly constituted under Sections 4 and 11 of the Act, however, the Court noted that he raised no objections during the inquiry and instead fully participated in the process. The Bench held that objections to composition cannot be permitted post-facto and that the proper statutory remedy would have been an appeal under Section 18. Finding no legal defect, the writ petition was dismissed. Read the Order here.

   
   

2. Delhi HC Directs DU To Act On Ramjas College Decision To Terminate Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment

   Ramjas College informed the Delhi High Court that its governing body has resolved to terminate the services of a professor accused of sexually harassing a minor in 2024. The survivor had approached the Court seeking directions to Delhi University and the college to implement the Internal Committee’s recommendations dated 18 June under the UGC 2015 Regulations. Noting the college’s submission that the termination proposal has already been communicated to DU, the Court directed the University to urgently consider the matter and take necessary steps within three weeks. The accused professor had previously resigned in January amid student protests. An FIR under POCSO was registered in May.

   
   

3. Delhi HC: CISF Penalty For Sexual Harassment Is Proportionate And Proper

   
   

   The Delhi High Court has upheld disciplinary action imposed on a CISF sub-inspector found guilty of sexually harassing a female colleague. The Court affirmed the 2016 CISF order reducing the officer’s pay for two years with a bar on increments, noting that witness statements and evidence supported findings of vulgar messages, inappropriate calls, in-person misconduct, and indecent remarks. The petitioner argued the complaint was false, alleged blackmail, and claimed the messages were casual conversation; however, the Bench held the conduct was clearly unacceptable and unbecoming of a uniformed officer. Observing that the punishment was commensurate with the misconduct, the writ was dismissed.