Delhi HC Upholds Principal-Appointed Panel Despite Bias Challenge, Sets 90-Day Target for Fresh Sexual-Harassment Inquiry

The petitioners, Associate Professors at Kalindi College, complained that four faculty members had subjected them to harassment, intimidation and sexually coloured remarks.

The earlier Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found that the allegations were not sexual in nature; its report was accepted by the College’s Governing Body.

On the petitioners’ appeal, the Vice-Chancellor set aside the inquiry, citing the participation of a member named in the events and non-compliance with the requirement for an external member, and directed a fresh inquiry by a properly constituted committee.

The Principal then constituted a new Internal Committee (IC).

The petitioners challenged both the Vice-Chancellor’s order and the new IC, alleging, among other things, bias in the Principal’s role and in the composition of the committee.

Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 requires an employer to constitute an Internal Committee; Section 11(4) requires the inquiry to be completed within 90 days.

Regulation 4(1) of the UGC (Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 prescribes the committee’s composition and vests nomination in the Executive Authority; Regulation 4(3) excludes specified senior administrative officers to preserve the committee’s autonomy.

A bias challenge requires cogent material establishing a real likelihood or danger of bias; a mere apprehension is insufficient (G.N. Nayak v. Goa University; ABP (P) Ltd. v. Union of India; Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University).

The absence of a personal hearing does not, by itself, invalidate a decision where no resulting prejudice is shown (Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan).

The statutory inquiry must be conducted by the designated IC, rather than by a parallel fact-finding body (Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi).

The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor’s order granted the principal relief sought—setting aside the earlier inquiry and directing a fresh inquiry—and that the written appeal and representations had been considered; the petitioners showed no prejudice from not receiving a personal hearing.

Once the earlier inquiry was found unsustainable, the Vice-Chancellor could not undertake the fact-finding himself, and neither the PoSH Act nor the UGC Regulations authorised a University-level committee for this College workplace.

The earlier court order merely recorded the petitioners’ submissions and made no finding that the Principal was biased.

The Principal was not a respondent to the complaint, and her prior administrative decisions did not establish a personal or pecuniary interest in its outcome.

Nor did a faculty member’s attendance at the relevant staff meeting, or a non-teaching employee’s ordinary administrative subordination to the Principal, establish disqualifying bias.

The external-member requirement was met by the appointment of a law professor unconnected with the College or parties.

It directed the new IC to proceed in accordance with the PoSH Act, Rules and UGC Regulations, observe natural justice, and endeavour to conclude the inquiry within 90 days of receiving the judgment.