WOMEN EMPOWERMENT

WOMEN EMPOWERMENT

INQUIRY INTO THE COMPLAINT OF AGGRIEVED WOMEN AGAINST SEXUAL HAASSMENT 

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”.