Employer Can't Set Up Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee Before ICC Inquiry; Violates PoSH Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an employer cannot constitute an ad hoc fact-finding committee to examine allegations of sexual harassment prior to referring the complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), observing that such a course is dehors the statutory scheme of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,

“Once the legislature has expressly designated the ICC/Local Committee as the authority which shall inquire into such complaints, the constitution of any parallel or pre-ICC fact-finding body would be outside the statutory scheme.”

The bench made the observation while deciding a petition filed by the principal of Delhi University's Ramanujan College, challenging the constitution of a fact-finding committee and his subsequent suspension based on its report.

Complaints alleging misconduct, including sexual harassment, were made by faculty members against the petitioner. Instead of immediately placing the matter before the ICC, the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi constituted an ad hoc fact-finding committee to examine the allegations.

The committee submitted a report opining that the allegations were serious in nature and warranted further action. Based on this report, the college placed the petitioner under suspension.

The Court held that considering the sensitive nature of cases under PoSH Act, the legislature has enacted provisions of confidentiality and the constitution of two different committees—an Internal Complaints Committee (―ICC‖) and a Local Committee for inquiring into the said complaints.

However, if an ad hoc committee is given the mandate of inquiring into the complaint of sexual-harassment, the same would violate the express words of the statute, which state that the ICC/Local Committee ―shall‖ inquire into the said complaint.

“The consequence of allowing such a pre-ICC fact-finding may also have serious consequences on the sanctity of the inquiry. For instance, the victim may be forced to enter into an environment/atmosphere not catered and specialized for handling complaints of such sensitive nature. Moreover, such an ad hoc committee could also serve as a means to delay the substantive inquiry under the PoSH Act. The complaint of a genuine victim would then hangfire till the ad hoc committee concludes its inquiry,” the Court added.

Moreover, the Court held that there is no rule/ law/ regulation governing the constitution of such ad hoc committees, and naturally, there is no law providing timelines in relation to its proceedings.

The ICC and the Local Committee as envisaged under the PoSH Act on the other hand, are specialized bodies containing members having the requisite expertise to deal with matters of such sensitivity. The scheme of the PoSH Act also requires a deadline driven, time-limit constrained adjudication.

“The constitution of a parallel, extra-statutory committee in substitution of or prior to the ICC, therefore, offends not merely the express provisions of PoSH Act but also the foundational principles of natural justice,” the Court said.

As such, the Court held that creation of an ad hoc fact finding committee, such as that formed in the instant case by the Registrar (Colleges), DU is unbeknownst to the law, and is in violation of the PoSH Act.

Appearance: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms Shalini Singh, Ms Prashansika Thakur, Mr Lakshay Saini, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Ms. Tripta Sharma Advocates for R-1. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Mr. Shivam Malhotra and Mr. Pallav Arora, Advocates for R-2.

Case title: RS v. DU

Case no.: W.P.(C) 14760/2025

Click here to read order