Gujarat High Court Warns Of 'Reverse Bias' Against Accused In POSH Cases; Says Misuse May “Create More Glass Ceilings” For Genuine Employees
The Gujarat High Court upheld a report by a cooperative society's Internal Complaints Committee which had rejected a woman employee's sexual harassment complaint against two officials–including a woman, as false and baseless. In doing so the court found that the ICC was unbiased and had complied with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act....
The Gujarat High Court upheld a report by a cooperative society's Internal Complaints Committee which had rejected a woman employee's sexual harassment complaint against two officials–including a woman, as false and baseless.
In doing so the court found that the ICC was unbiased and had complied with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. It further warned against operation of "reverse bias" against the male accused in such cases, which if extended by adjudicating forums might be counterproductive as it may create more glass ceilings thereby creating fetters in employment of genuine employees.
The court passed the order in a woman employee's plea challenging the report of Internal Complaints Committee of a dairy cooperative entity (respondent no. 1) which had rejected her allegations of sexual harassment against cooperative's managing director and a woman employee.
Additionally the petitioner had sought a direction to the dairy cooperative to constitute a fresh, neutral, and independent Internal Complaints Committee and direct a de novo inquiry into the Petitioner's complaint under the supervision of a retired judicial officer or such independent authority as the court deems fit.
Referring to provisions of the POSH Act, Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order observed that the definition of Sexual Harassment is wide enough to cover both direct or implied sexual conduct which may involve physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct. It noted that the key distinguishing feature is that the conduct is unwarranted and un-welcomed by the recipient. The court noted that the definition also includes reference to create an offensive or intimidating or hostile work environment.
On whether the petitioner's case falls within definition of sexual harassment the court said, "While examining the said fact, the ICC has recorded in detail after examining relevant evidence including CCTV footage and they have also referred the investigation carried out by the police and thus, while carried out inquiry, the ICC has completely followed the framework as provided under Section 11 of the POSH Act. The Inquiry Committee has submitted its report strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 11 of the POSH Act".
The court however also noted that as per Section 14, in case complaint is found to be false or malicious, then the ICC may recommend to the employer to take action against the woman/complainant, in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable or where no such service rules exist in such manner as may be prescribed. It said,
"There is another underlying context in the present matter. In allegations of sexual harassment, which are sensitive by their very nature, one has to be careful that a reverse bias does not operate against the involved male accused, since the statute itself provides sufficient protection, a double layer of protection, if extended by adjudicating forums to the complainant, might be counterproductive, since excessive abuse of the provisions of the statute will create more glass ceilings than they remove, creating fetters in the employment of genuinely competent and hard-working employee.
On perusal of the above discussed facts and circumstances, the writ courts, in judicial review, have to be careful so as not to substitute their own opinions for those of the adjudicating authorities unless there is any patent unreasonableness, arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity and/or illegality evident on the face of the record. I do not find any bias operating in the mind of the ICC or reflected in the impugned decision".
The court found that the ICC had complied with all principles of natural justice by giving adequate opportunity of hearing and carefully assessing the entire body of evidence before dismissing the petitioner's complaint.
It thus found that the principles of natural justice were adhered to and "there was no flaw whatsoever in the decision-making process adopted".
The petitioner was employed with the respondent entity in 2018 and was promoted to Assistant Manager (Marketing) on 29.10.2021.
She alleged that on 28.05.2025, she was subjected to physical and verbal assault by two individuals which included the managing director, who had forcibly snatched the petitioner's mobile phone from her hand and confiscated it.
She went for a medical examination wherein the attending doctor advised her to lodge a criminal complaint in view of the injuries; but due to apprehension of adverse consequences the petitioner expressed her unwillingness to initiate criminal proceedings at that time. In absence of such willingness, the doctor declined to record the bruise marks in the medical certificate and consequently, no criminal complaint was lodged at the relevant time.
The petitioner thereafter was summoned on 29.05.2025 by the police, which was issued pursuant to a purported complaint lodged by respondent no. 2. On 31.05.2025, the petitioner was called to the police station for recording her statement in connection with her complaint, however, upon reaching the police station, she was informed that a complaint had been lodged against her by the MD, and the petitioner was directed to sign a pre-prepared confession statement allegedly admitting to the offence imputed to her.
The petitioner wrote to the Human Resource Department requesting constitution of an ICC under the POSH Act to inquire into her complaint against the two officials.
Simultaneously, the woman official also lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and certain unknown persons alleging that on 27.05.2025 she came to know that certain letters were being circulated containing defamatory allegations along with her photographs, insinuating an illicit relationship between her and the MD.
The woman official had alleged that such circulation had outraged her modesty and caused serious harm to her reputation and she had caught the petitioner red-handed taking her photographs on her mobile on 28.05.2025.
On 02.09.2025, a hearing was conducted by the ICC, wherein both the petitioner and the woman official were specifically asked whether they were willing to explore conciliation in terms of Section 10 of the POSH Act; however, both parties declined.
The petitioner raised an objection to the constitution of the ICC on the ground that its members were direct subordinates of the Managing Director, thereby vitiating the proceedings and offending principles of natural justice.
The ICC in its final report dated 25.09.2025 concluded that the petitioner's complaint was false and baseless and disciplinary action must be taken against her. However, the ICC's report in respect of the complaint filed by the woman official concluded that the allegations made therein require some consideration and the said complaint was forwarded to the police authorities for initiating appropriate action.On 11.02.2026 petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect.
Finding no scope for interference, the upheld the ICC's final report and dismissed the writ petition.
It however made it clear that it has not gone into the merits of the impending criminal trial, if at all, initiated against the concerned person against whom allegations of sexual assault have been made by the petitioner.
The court further that the petitioner has the liberty to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, and if she does so it shall be decided in accordance with law, after affording ample opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties without being influenced by high court's order.
Case title: X v/s Y & Anr.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3285 of 2026