The recent ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute[1] serves as a critical wake-up call for organizations implementing the POSH Act. It provides guidance as to how Internal Committees (ICs) are expected to conduct inquiries under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (the Act).

Natural Justice is non-negotiable

The Court made it clear that no matter how grave the allegations of sexual harassment are, IC must strictly follow the prescribed inquiry procedures. In this case, the IC failed to formally record complainant statements or provide an opportunity for cross-examination, leading the Court to set aside its findings. Substantive justice cannot come at the expense of procedural fairness; failing to adhere to natural justice will render an IC report legally unsustainable. The Court reaffirmed that even though the Act does not prescribe a detailed procedure, natural justice is not optional.

Dealing with the 3-Month Limitation Period

Section 9 of the Act postulates that any aggrieved woman may make a complaint, in writing, of sexual harassment at the work place to the IC within a period of three months from the date of incident, and in the case of series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of the last incident. Further, the IC may for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time of making the complaint not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances prevailing prevented the woman from filing of the complaint within the prescribed period of three months. The High Court ruled that late complaints cannot be mechanically rejected at the threshold without considering the unique vulnerabilities of the victims. The IC must deeply evaluate the facts of each case, look at the reasons for delay, and pass a reasoned order on whether to reject the delayed complaint or proceed with the inquiry.

The Path Forward

• For Employees: Awareness sessions must highlight the statutory limitation periods under the Act to encourage timely reporting.
• For IC Members: Intensive training is required on how to meticulously implement the principles of natural justice, properly handle late complaints, and legally document a well-reasoned decision. Further, transparency must be ensured at every stage.
• Review of POSH Policy: Companies should review their POSH Policy and, if needed, update it to provide clear guidance on limitation period to file complaint, scope for condoning delays in line with POSH Act, principles of natural justice to be followed (such as, rule against bias, opportunity to be heard and reasoned order).
• Internal Committee: Lastly, while constituting or re-constituting the Internal Committee, it is advisable to include at least one internal or external member who has knowledge of law, as such member’s expertise can come in handy to ensure adherence with administrative law principles of natural justice, to take procedural safeguards related to limitation period and also to carry out proper documentation of the proceedings which will help the company in case of any legal challenge.

In summary, to prevent internal inquiry reports from being quashed by courts, organizations must revamp their training modules. Moreover, a well‑trained IC is not merely a procedural necessity; it is an organisation’s strongest defence against faulty inquiries and the disputes that arise when due process is ignored. Ultimately, a well-trained IC transforms compliance from a legal burden into a powerful safeguard against procedural errors and subsequent lawsuits.

[1] WRIT – A No. – 12736 of 2018 (Allahabad HC)