The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that procedural integrity under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, cannot be sacrificed for expediency - even in cases involving serious allegations. The Court set aside a censure order against a professor after finding that the Internal Complaints Committee failed to follow mandatory inquiry procedures and improperly relied on belated complaints without a reasoned assessment of delay.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Tapas Kumar Das, an Associate Professor-G in Astrophysics at the Harish Chandra Research Institute (HCRI), Allahabad, faced multiple complaints of sexual harassment filed by female students and post-doctoral fellows who had worked under him between 2013 and 2016. The complaints, submitted to the Institute’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), alleged physical contact, unwelcome advances, sexually coloured remarks, late-night office summons, and the transmission of pornographic links via email. The ICC concluded that Dr. Das was guilty of serial harassment and recommended disciplinary action. The Governing Council of HCRI imposed a penalty of ‘Censure’ and barred him from supervising any female students, post-doctoral fellows (PDFs), or research assistants (RAs).
Key Facts
- Dr. Das was appointed as Associate Professor-G in Astrophysics at HCRI, Allahabad.
- Between 2013 and 2016, at least ten complaints were filed by female students and PDFs alleging sexual harassment.
- Alleged incidents included: physical contact, late-night office meetings, inappropriate Facebook messages, sending pornographic links, and coercive behavior.
- One complainant alleged that Dr. Das grabbed her hand and arm, attempted to pull her onto his lap, and prevented her from leaving his office.
- Dr. Das admitted in a meeting with the ICC on 20.07.2016 to sending a pornographic link to one complainant but later denied it in his written response.
- The ICC noted that the complainants were young, vulnerable, and feared career retaliation, which delayed their complaints.
- No specific dates were provided for the alleged incidents in the complaints.
- The ICC did not record statements of complainants, did not provide copies of statements to the petitioner, and did not grant him an opportunity for cross-examination or oral hearing.
- The ICC’s report dated 17.08.2016 acknowledged that complaints were filed beyond the three-month period under Section 9 of the POSH Act but proceeded anyway.
Procedural History
- 2013 - 2016: Alleged incidents of harassment occurred.
- 2016: Complaints submitted to ICC; some complaints were received more than six months after the last alleged incident.
- 17.08.2016: ICC submitted its report recommending disciplinary action despite delay.
- 30.09.2016: HCRI Governing Council reviewed ICC’s findings.
- 09.07.2017: Governing Council issued impugned order imposing ‘Censure’ and barring Dr. Das from supervising female students.
- 12.12.2017: Writ Petition (No. 12736 of 2018) filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order.
- 04.05.2026: AFR reserved.
- 07.05.2026: Judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 09.07.2017, restoration of his right to supervise female students, and a direction to conduct a fair inquiry in accordance with the POSH Act and principles of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Internal Complaints Committee could proceed with an inquiry into complaints filed beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 9 of the POSH Act without recording statements, granting cross-examination, or providing a reasoned justification for condoning delay - and whether the failure to follow mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 11 and Rule 7 renders the inquiry void.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the POSH Act is a special statute requiring strict compliance. Section 9 mandates that complaints be filed within three months of the incident, or six months at most with a reasoned extension. The complaints here were filed more than six months after the last alleged incident, with no explanation or justification for delay. The ICC failed to record statements of complainants, denied the petitioner any opportunity for cross-examination, and did not provide him with copies of complaints or witness lists. The inquiry was conducted on the basis of vague, undated allegations without adhering to the principles of natural justice under Section 11 and Rule 7. Reliance was placed on X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti to argue that complaints patently barred by limitation must be rejected at threshold unless exceptional circumstances are recorded.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel conceded that the ICC did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 11 and Rule 7, particularly in not recording statements or allowing cross-examination. However, they argued that the gravity of the allegations - physical contact, late-night coercion, and transmission of pornography - justified relaxing the limitation period under Section 9. They contended that victims in academic settings often delay reporting due to fear of retaliation and that the object of the POSH Act is to protect women, not to deny redress on technical grounds. They suggested that if procedural defects were found, the matter should be remanded for a fresh inquiry with proper procedure.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by emphasizing that the POSH Act was enacted to give effect to constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and to fulfill India’s obligations under international conventions. However, the Court held that the Act’s protective intent cannot override its own procedural mandates. Section 9 imposes a strict limitation period, and while the proviso allows for a three-month extension if reasons are recorded, the ICC made no such recording. The Court noted that X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti does not permit blanket relaxation of limitation but requires a reasoned determination before proceeding.
"The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten."
The Court observed that while the allegations, if proven, fall squarely within Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, the ICC’s failure to record statements, provide copies of complaints, or allow cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice. Rule 7(4) explicitly requires inquiry to be conducted in accordance with natural justice, and Section 11(3) grants the ICC the powers of a civil court to summon and examine witnesses. The absence of any reference in the ICC report to whether complainants were examined, whether their statements were shared with the petitioner, or whether he was given a chance to respond to them rendered the inquiry fundamentally flawed.
The Court further held that the mere seriousness of allegations cannot substitute for procedural compliance. Even if delay is condoned, the inquiry must be conducted fairly. The Court rejected the argument that the matter could be remanded for a fresh reply, because the foundational defect - lack of recorded statements and denial of cross-examination - could not be cured by merely allowing a new written response. The inquiry must restart from the stage of receiving complaints, with full procedural safeguards.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 09.07.2017 imposing ‘Censure’ and barring the petitioner from supervising female students, PDFs, or RAs was set aside. The ICC is directed to reconsider all complaints afresh, including an assessment of whether the delay in filing is condonable under Section 9, with reasons recorded in writing. If the ICC decides to proceed, it must record statements of complainants, provide copies to the petitioner, grant him an opportunity for cross-examination, and conduct a fair hearing under Section 11 and Rule 7. The ICC shall pass a reasoned decision on whether to proceed or reject the complaints within eight weeks from the date of judgment. The petitioner shall be entitled to participate in the inquiry only if the ICC decides to proceed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist that ICCs strictly comply with Section 11 and Rule 7 - failure to record statements or allow cross-examination invalidates the entire inquiry, regardless of the gravity of allegations.
- Institutions cannot substitute procedural fairness with administrative expediency, even in high-profile cases.
Delayed Complaints Require Reasoned Condonation
- A blanket acceptance of delayed complaints based on ‘seriousness’ or ‘vulnerability’ is legally unsustainable.
- Any extension under Section 9 must be accompanied by specific, written reasons addressing why the complainant was prevented from filing within the statutory period.
- Vague assertions of fear or power imbalance are insufficient; the ICC must document the factual basis for condonation.
Locus to Participate Is Conditional
-
A respondent has no right to participate in the preliminary stage of assessing delay under Section 9.
-
Locus to participate arises only after the ICC decides to proceed with the inquiry, at which point full procedural rights under Section 11 and Rule 7 must be granted.
-
Practitioners should file applications for production of complaint records and witness lists at the earliest stage to preserve procedural rights.
-
Institutions must maintain a log of all complaints received, dates of filing, and reasons for any extension granted under Section 9.
