Gujarat HC upholds internal report in POSH case, cautions against 'reverse bias' in harassment cases

Gujarat High Court has declined to quash the final report of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in a sexual harassment complaint filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

A female employee of a cooperative society had accused the managing director of misbehaviour and improper physical contact. In its order, the court observed that the ICC's final report dated September 25, 2025, was legal and valid, with no apparent illegality.

The committee conducted a detailed inquiry under Section 11 of the POSH Act, examining evidence including CCTV footage and police investigation reports, while fully adhering to the statutory framework.

The bench highlighted the sensitive nature of sexual harassment allegations and warned against a 'reverse bias' operating against 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," the court noted.

It added that excessive abuse of the POSH provisions could create more glass ceilings than they remove, potentially deterring the employment of competent and hardworking individuals.

The petitioner, appointed as Senior Executive (Sales) in April 2018 and later promoted to Assistant Manager (Marketing), alleged that the Managing Director misbehaved with her on or around May 28, 2025. She also filed a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad Range, and the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission.

Separately, another woman filed a complaint against the petitioner before the ICC, accusing her of outraging modesty and circulating defamatory anonymous letters.

The court emphasised that the definition of sexual harassment under the Act is broad, covering direct or implied unwelcome conduct—physical, verbal, or non-verbal—provided it is unwanted by the recipient. However, it clarified that it had not delved into the merits of any impending criminal trial against the accused.

Notably, the petitioner did not implead the managing director as a party in the writ proceedings.

The high court reserved liberty for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the POSH Act. It directed that any such appeal be decided in accordance with law, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, without being influenced by the order.