POSH Proceedings Independent of Criminal Trial, Rules Gauhati HC in IIT Guwahati Case

The Gauhati High Court has held that proceedings before an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 can continue independently of a criminal investigation or trial arising from the same allegations, observing that the statutory framework governing workplace sexual harassment creates civil liability distinct from criminal prosecution.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a faculty member of IIT Guwahati challenging a single judge’s decision which had refused to quash an ICC inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment.

The Bench upheld the earlier order directing the ICC to conduct a preliminary fact-finding inquiry in accordance with the 2013 Act and the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015, holding that the earlier ICC had failed to discharge its statutory duties.

The Court affirmed that the writ petition lacked merit and that the ICC must proceed with the inquiry and submit its report, following which the employer may decide whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted.

The appellant, a professor residing on the IIT Guwahati campus, had been accused by a colleague of sexual harassment at the workplace.

According to the records before the Court, the complainant had alleged that she was sexually assaulted in December, 2014 while performing her official duties and subsequently lodged a complaint before the institutional authorities as well as an FIR with the police.

The appellant was arrested soon thereafter and remained under suspension from service beginning 17.12.2014.

Earlier litigation between the parties had resulted in the appellant securing reinstatement by an order of the High Court in 2017, which was affirmed by a Division Bench.

However, the Supreme Court later set aside the Division Bench order in September, 2025 and granted liberty to the employer to conclude departmental proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months.

During the course of events, the complaint was placed before the Internal Complaints Committee of IIT, Guwahati.

The ICC, however, declined to proceed with the matter on multiple occasions between 2014 and 2018, stating that the allegations were already under investigation and trial before a criminal court.

As a result, no substantive inquiry into the complaint was conducted.

Subsequently, the institute reconstituted the ICC in 2022, which submitted a report indicating that there were sufficient grounds to examine allegations under Section 3 of the 2013 Act and that the conduct attributed to the appellant could amount to official misconduct.

The appellant challenged the report and the related communications through a writ petition before the High Court, seeking quashing of the ICC proceedings.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in February 2026, observing that the ICC had earlier abdicated its statutory responsibilities by refusing to examine the complaint merely because criminal proceedings were pending.

The Court held that the earlier minutes of meetings recorded by the ICC could not be treated as a valid inquiry report under Sections 11 and 13 of the 2013 Act.

In the present appeal, the appellant contended that allowing repeated reports by the ICC amounted to an endless process and argued that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution would apply since he was already facing a criminal trial for the same allegations.

It was further argued that the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by directing the ICC and institutional authorities to proceed with the inquiry.

Rejecting these submissions, the Division Bench held that the minutes of meetings recorded by the ICC in 2014, 2015 and 2018 merely reflected the committee’s decision not to act due to pendency of criminal proceedings and could not be regarded as a statutory report or recommendation under the 2013 Act.

The Court noted that a valid ICC report must contain findings on the complaint and recommendations to the employer regarding action to be taken, which were absent in the earlier minutes.

The Court also rejected the argument based on double jeopardy, clarifying that proceedings under the 2013 Act and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres; While criminal proceedings may result in penal consequences under criminal law, ICC proceedings relate to workplace discipline and civil consequences under the statutory framework governing sexual harassment complaints.

The Bench further observed that the ICC had failed to acquaint itself with the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the government’s Office Memorandum issued in 2015 clarifying the procedure for inquiries in sexual harassment cases.

In such circumstances, the Single Judge was justified in issuing directions requiring the ICC to initiate a preliminary inquiry in accordance with the statutory scheme.

The Court also noted that the complainant had not been made a party to the writ proceedings or the present appeal, despite being the person directly affected by the allegations. It expressed concern that due to procedural lapses and the ICC’s failure to conduct an inquiry, the complaint had remained unresolved for nearly twelve years.

Holding that there was no legal infirmity in the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment and dismissed the intra-court appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

The Court also took note of the Top Court's earlier direction requiring the employer to conclude departmental proceedings expeditiously and observed that the time period indicated by the apex court was approaching.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Aloke Kumar Ghoshal v. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati & Ors.

Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

Date of Judgment: 13.03.2026