UNDER SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION,
PROHIBITION & REDRESSAL) ACT 2013.
“Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to follow ‘Principles of Natural Justice’ while
conducting the Inquiry.
Section 11 of the above act provides for the Inquiry into the complaint of aggrieved
woman (Complainant) against Sexual Harassment at Workplace.
The Rules appended to the above act in Rule – 7 provide for the “Manner of Inquiry
into Complaint”. Amongst other provisions of this Rule, at Rule 7(4), the Complaints
Committee is directed to conduct the inquiry into the complaint in accordance with
the “Principles of Natural Justice”.
The Principles of Natural Justice, however, have not been defined in the Act of the
appended Rules, the same therefore are described below,
1. Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side/party or an opportunity for fair hearing
must be given before passing any order.
2. Nemo judex in causa sua – one cannot be a judge in his own cause also known as
the rule against bias.
The first principal says that a reasonable and fair opportunity MUST be given to the
respondent to present his defence before the passing any order.
The right of the respondent to cross examine the complainant and her witnesses is
also part of reasonable and fair opportunity besides the accused person’s own
statement, statement of his witnesses and other material viz. Audio, visual, print
or written.
If in an inquiry, the findings are given by the ICC without giving the opportunity of
cross examination to the respondent, such findings shall be deemed to be violating
the Principals of natural Justice and be therefore bad in Law.
The above was held by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA no. 305 of
2017, in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs- Delhi University.
The appellant/respondent raised the issue before the Division Bench of Delhi High
Court that ICC gave the findings in the Inquiry without giving him the opportunity
to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant rendering the findings to be
violative of Principals of Natural Justice.
The Court, After hearing the learned counsel for the parties gave the opinion that
the respondent/appellant was entitled to a hearing and to cross-examine the
witnesses produced by the Complainant before the ICC and directed ICC to conduct
again a time bound Inquiry.
The Court however, prescribed the following procedure for cross examination,
"Primarily, in a sexual harassment complaint, the committee (ICC) has to verify and
analyse the capability of the aggrieved to depose before them fearlessly without any
intimidation. If the Committee is of the view that the aggrieved is feeble and cannot
withstand any cross examination, the Committee can adopt such other measures to
ensure that the witnesses’ statement is contradicted or corrected by the delinquent
in other manner. The fair opportunity, therefore, has to be understood in the context
of atmosphere of free expression of grievance. If the Committee is of the view that
the witness or complainant can freely depose without any fear, certainly, the
delinquent can be permitted to have verbal cross examination of such witnesses.
In cases, where the Committee is of the view that the complainant is not in a position
to express freely, the Committee can adopt such other method permitting the
delinquent to contradict and correct by providing statements of witnesses to the
delinquent and soliciting his objections to such statements."
In this case, the identity of the witnesses need not be revealed to the respondent/
appellant and for this purpose the respondent/appellant would be entitled to submit
the questionnaire to ICC which will be put to the witnesses for their answers in writing
and the statements made by the witnesses without their names will be supplied to the
respondent/appellant. This will ensure the anonymity of the witnesses as well as
adherence to the “Principles of Natural Justice”.