PoSH Law India Update - October '26 Edition
Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the October '26 edition of PoSH Law India update.
Internal Committee's closure report is not sufficient to close a criminal case: Karnataka High Court refuses to quash an FIR under Section 354A IPC against a doctor
An Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery at the Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences, was accused by a Junior Resident working under him of indecent touch. The matter was first reported to the Internal Committee (IC), which held an inquiry and closed it. The complainant later filed a police complaint, and an FIR under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered on 12 August 2022. Dr. Hebbar then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the FIR.
Issue:
Can an FIR under Section 354A of IPC be quashed at the beginning because the IC had already closed the matter and the police complaint was filed after 28 days?
Judgment:
In Dr. Ashwin Hebbar K. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 18058 of 2022), the Karnataka High Courtheld that an inquiry report or closure by the Internal Committee (IC) following a workplace sexual harassment complaint cannot, by itself result in the closure of a criminal case involving a cognizable offense. A Single Bench of Justice V. Srishananda dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR registered under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the professor. The Court observed that since an offense under Section 354A IPC is cognizable, committee proceedings and closure reports are not sufficient to terminate criminal proceedings without a full police investigation. Rejecting the petitioner's arguments regarding a 28-day delay in lodging the police complaint, the High Court held that delay in filing an FIR cannot serve as a ground for quashing at the inception stage, clarifying that such delay and internal inquiry reports constitute matters of defense to be evaluated during trial. Read the order here.
Rajasthan High Court: Suspension in a PoSH misconduct case cannot be quashed only because the charge-sheet was not served within three months
A Block Chief Medical Officer was suspended on 16 January 2026 under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, after a Female Health Worker complained of sexual harassment at the workplace. On 19 March 2026, the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal quashed the suspension because a charge sheet had not been served within three months. The State challenged this order before the Rajasthan High Court.
Issue:
Does the failure to serve a charge sheet within three months make a suspension illegal, and was this suspension passed in contemplation of an inquiry even though the order did not say so?
Judgment:
In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Rupendra Kumar Sharma (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17704/2026), theRajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which had quashed the suspension of a Block Chief Medical Officer accused of workplace sexual harassment. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that suspension is permissible under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending. Referring to Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Court clarified that suspension is not automatically invalid if a charge-sheet is not served within three months. Instead, the suspension must be reviewed and reasons must be recorded for its extension. It also observed that the officer had approached the Tribunal before the three-month period expired, making his challenge premature. The Court emphasized that in workplace sexual harassment cases, the complainant's interests and a fair inquiry must be protected. It restored the suspension and directed the department to complete disciplinary proceedings preferably within six months of serving the charge-sheet. The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations. Read the order here.
Orissa High Court upholds Natural Justice in PoSH inquiries, orders a fresh inquiry over denial of deposition copies and cross examination
Anukul Chandra Rout, an Associate Director (Programming Fiction) at Zee’s Bhubaneswar office, was accused by an actor of the television show “SHREE” of sexual harassment through derogatory comments, messages and calls. The complaint was handled by the Internal Committee at the Mumbai Head Office. The Mumbai IC held the inquiry through video conference and recommended his termination. He appealed under Section 18(1) of the PoSH Act to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar-cum-Appellate Authority, which set aside the report and the termination and ordered a fresh inquiry. The employer challenged this order before the Orissa High Court.
Issue:
Was the PoSH inquiry fair when the employee received only a gist of the depositions and was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and was the Appellate Authority right in ordering a fresh inquiry?
Judgment:
In the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. V. Anukul Chandra Rout & Ors. W.P.(C) No.20232 of 2025 (decided on 14 October 2026) Justice B.P. Routray of the Orissa High Court dismissed the employer’s petition and upheld the Appellate Authority’s decision directing a fresh inquiry into allegations of workplace sexual harassment, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness under the PoSH Act, 2013. In this case, the respondent challenged the disciplinary proceeding, that called for his termination on the grounds that the copies of the complainant’s and witnesses’ depositions were not provided to him, only a summary of the same was conveyed to him. Furthermore, he was not allowed to cross-examine them either. It was also noted that the Internal Committee (IC) was constituted at the Mumbai Head Office, although the parties worked at the Bhubaneswar branch, without sufficient justification for excluding local IC. The Labour Court, Bhubaneswar-cum-Appellate Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent and directed a fresh inquiry into the incident and a report on the same within 45 days. Aggrieved by this, the employer approached the High Court of Orissa. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the employer’s writ petition and affirmed the direction for a fresh inquiry. The Court held that an Internal Committee inquiry must comply with the principles of natural justice, in line with Section 11 of the PoSH Act read with Rule 7 of the PoSH Rules. The respondent must receive a meaningful and fair opportunity to answer allegations. Read the judgment here.
Madras High Court quashes punishment for sexual harassment for breach of Natural Justice and orders for a fresh inquiry
A Ph.D. student complained that her research guide, a Professor at Pondicherry University, had sexually harassed her. After an inquiry by the Sexual Harassment Prevention Committee of the University, the University imposed a two year suspension and demotion to a lower post on the professor. He challenged the order before the Madras High Court, stating that the inquiry violated the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) and the principles of natural justice.
Issues:
(i) Was the PoSH inquiry fair and valid, even though the rules require the procedure to be followed only “as far as practicable”. and; (ii) Can two different penalties be imposed together for the same misconduct?
Judgement:
In Dr. Pramod Singh v. Pondicherry University (W.P. No. 17012 of 2023), decided on 16 October 2026 Justice C. Kumarappan of the Madras High Court quashed the university’s order dated 10 May 2023 imposing a two-year suspension and demotion to a lower post on a professor accused of sexual harassment. The Court held that the inquiry violated the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner was not provided with the inquiry report or copies of statements recorded from the complainant and other witnesses, nor was he provided an opportunity to cross-examine them. Additionally, two earlier instances of alleged misconduct were considered while recommending punishment without first informing him or giving him an opportunity to respond. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, the Court emphasized that the expression “as far as practicable” do not allow the principles of natural justice to be ignored. It also observed that multiple substantive penalties cannot be imposed for the same misconduct unless authorized by the applicable service rules. The Court sent the matter to the Internal Committee (IC) for a fresh inquiry (de novo) inquiry and ordered that the Committee must give the petitioner an adequate opportunity to defend himself and submit its report to the disciplinary authority after completing the inquiry. The Court ordered that the first hearing must be fixed within four weeks of receipt of the order, and the proceedings must conclude within three months from the first hearing. Read the order here.
Delhi High Court: Mere Apprehension of Bias Is Not Enough to Challenge a New PoSH Internal Committee; Fresh Inquiry at the College Level Upheld
Two Associate Professors of Kalindi College, a constituent college of the University of Delhi, complained on 07.07.2025 that four faculty colleagues had harassed them and made sexually colored remarks, including in the Staff Association WhatsApp group. The College’s earlier Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) held that the allegations were “not sexual in nature”. On appeal, the Vice-Chancellor set aside that inquiry on 16.07.2026, because a member named in the events had taken part in it and the external member requirement had not been met, and directed a fresh inquiry by the College. The Principal then constituted a new Internal Committee (IC) on 28.07.2026, which the complainants challenged before the Delhi High Court.
Issue:
Was the new IC, constituted by the College Principal weaken by bias, and could the complainants demand a committee on University-level instead?
Judgement:
In Dr. XXXXXXXX & Anr. v. University of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 13218/2026), pronounced on 27 October 2026, Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor’s order had already given the complainants what they sought, and that neither the PoSH Act nor the UGC Regulations provide for a University-level committee for a complaint arising within a college. It also held that mere apprehension of bias is not enough, and found no cogent material to show that the Principal or the three members objected to were biased. Since the complaint had been pending for more than fifteen months, the Court directed the new IC to endeavour to conclude the inquiry within ninety days of receiving the judgement, in line with the PoSH Act and the principles of natural justice. Read the judgment here.
Comments