POSH: Facebook, Whatsapp Is “Workplace”, Delhi HC Upholds IC’s Recommendations Against DU Professor

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the findings of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) against a Delhi University professor, affirming that virtual interactions between a teacher and students, such as those over WhatsApp and Facebook, fall within the definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act, 2013.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while delivering the judgment, held that no case of perversity, procedural illegality, or denial of natural justice had been made out to warrant interference in the disciplinary proceedings. 

Observations by the Court

The Court began its observations by acknowledging the sensitivity of the case, noting that it involved complaints by students against their own teacher, a scenario that is rare in the Indian context, where teachers are traditionally held in high esteem.

Emphasising gravity of the allegations, the Court remarked that it had examined the contents of the WhatsApp and Facebook messages and other material, which were “so profane” that it was not inclined to reproduce them in the judgment.

“Teachers shape the career of young aspiring students for a better future. The act of sexual harassment done by these very teachers, who are considered as our guides and mentors, against young female students who have just attained majority, has a deleterious effect on the psyche of such students”, Court noted.

The Court reiterated that judicial review in matters of disciplinary proceedings is limited and does not extend to reappreciating evidence unless perversity or violation of natural justice is established.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, (2021) 12 SCC 569, the Court noted that “the standard of proof is not the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities”. In assessing the petitioner’s allegations of procedural irregularities, the Court applied the well-established test of prejudice, reiterating that not every technical or procedural lapse vitiates disciplinary proceedings unless real injustice is demonstrated.

The Top Court's ruling in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 was further referred to underscore that every inquiry in question must be viewed to assess whether the irregularity alleged actually impaired the petitioner to defend himself. The Court also cited ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, and State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora, (2001) 6 SCC 392, to observe that,

“The complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively.”

Addressing the issue of limitation, the Court held that the delay in filing complaints was justifiably condoned by ICC in view of the continuing hostile environment and the psychological impact on the complainants. It accepted the explanation that fear, social stigma, and the petitioner’s own plea for forgiveness had initially deterred the students from initiating formal proceedings.

The plea of the petitioner that the exchanged conversations over WhatsApp and Facebook were of a personal nature and did not constitute conduct “at the workplace” under the POSH Act was firmly rejected by the Internal committee.

In its findings, the ICC held;

“Since the Petitioner had shared his phone number with the students, all the interactions on various phone medium such as WhatsApp, would fall under the ambit of the definition of a ‘workplace’. It was further held that in the case of Complainant No.1, it was the Petitioner himself who had sent the friend request on Facebook. As a result, the interaction on social media was therefore an extension of the work relationship between the Petitioner and Complainant No. 1 because the Petitioner was not a ‘personal friend’ of the Complainant No. 1.”

The Court, while recording it’s reasoning in full, left the aforesaid observation uncontested and unchanged. Although it did not independently discuss the scope of "workplace," the Court’s upholding of the ICC's inquiry amounts to affirmation of the same.

Brief Background

The petitioner herein challenged letters intimating and confirming his compulsory retirement on account of sexual harassment allegations.

Four complaints were received against the petitioner, Amit Kumar, of which three were from the students of the respondent college whereas the fourth one was from an alumnus of the same college.

The petitioner was alleged to have sent objectionable messages to all students over Facebook messenger/WhatsApp chats with sexual undertone, evidences of which were attached by each of them to their complaint.

As per the WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and complainant no. 2, the petitioner had gone to the extent of sending texts like “hug me, kiss me” insisting the student to meet him privately in the study room.

The petitioner broadly challenged the legality of the inquiry, arguing that:

(i) all actions of the ICC except recording complainants’ evidence were void under a prior court order dated 21.05.2018 (ii) the ICC unlawfully delegated functions to a sub-committee (iii) its composition was invalid due to inclusion of undergraduate students in violation of the UGC Regulations (iv) the external member was replaced without the Court’s permission (v) three complaints were time-barred and the fourth, filed by an alumna, was outside the ICC’s jurisdiction and (vi) the alleged conduct did not amount to sexual harassment “at the workplace” under the POSH Act.

Case Title: Dr. Amit Kumar v. University of Delhi

Judgment Date: July 17, 2025

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad