POSH Proceedings Independent of Criminal Trial, Rules Gauhati HC in IIT Guwahati Case
On March 13, 2026, the Gauhati High Court delivered a significant ruling regarding the proceedings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act. The court held that ICC inquiries can proceed independently of any ongoing criminal trials, thereby reinforcing the distinct legal frameworks governing workplace sexual harassment and criminal prosecution.
Case Background
The case arose from allegations of sexual harassment made against a faculty member of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Guwahati. The complainant, a colleague of the accused, alleged that she was sexually assaulted while performing her official duties in December 2014. Following the incident, she lodged a complaint with the institutional authorities and subsequently filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the police.
The accused professor was arrested shortly after the complaint was filed and remained suspended from his position starting December 17, 2014. Over the years, the legal proceedings have seen various developments, including the professor’s reinstatement by a High Court order in 2017, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in September 2025. The Supreme Court directed the employer to expedite departmental proceedings related to the allegations.
Internal Complaints Committee Proceedings
Initially, the ICC at IIT Guwahati did not proceed with the inquiry into the allegations, citing the ongoing criminal investigation as a reason for inaction. This refusal occurred multiple times between 2014 and 2018, leading to a lack of substantive inquiry into the complaint. However, in 2022, the ICC was reconstituted and submitted a report indicating sufficient grounds to examine the allegations under Section 3 of the POSH Act, suggesting that the conduct attributed to the professor could amount to official misconduct.
Judicial Proceedings
The professor challenged the ICC’s report and the related communications through a writ petition in the High Court, seeking to quash the ICC proceedings. In February 2026, a Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissed this writ petition, stating that the ICC had previously failed to fulfill its statutory obligations by not examining the complaint solely because criminal proceedings were pending.
In the subsequent intra-court appeal, the Division Bench, consisting of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, upheld the Single Judge’s decision. The Bench emphasized that the earlier minutes recorded by the ICC did not constitute a valid inquiry report as required under the POSH Act. The court noted that a proper ICC report must include findings on the complaint and recommendations for action, which were absent in the earlier documentation.
Arguments Presented
During the appeal, the appellant argued that allowing repeated reports by the ICC constituted an endless process and claimed that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution should apply, as he was already facing a criminal trial for the same allegations. Furthermore, he contended that the Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the ICC and institutional authorities to continue with the inquiry.
However, the Division Bench rejected these arguments. The court clarified that the proceedings under the POSH Act and criminal prosecution operate in distinct legal spheres. While criminal proceedings may lead to penal consequences under criminal law, ICC proceedings are concerned with workplace discipline and civil consequences arising from sexual harassment complaints.
Legal Framework and Responsibilities
The court highlighted that the ICC had not adequately familiarized itself with the relevant provisions of the POSH Act, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the government’s Office Memorandum issued in 2015, which clarifies the procedures for inquiries in sexual harassment cases. Given these circumstances, the Single Judge’s directive for the ICC to initiate a preliminary inquiry was deemed justified.
Moreover, the court noted that the complainant had not been made a party to either the writ proceedings or the appeal, despite being directly affected by the allegations. This procedural lapse raised concerns about the unresolved status of the complaint, which had lingered for nearly twelve years.
Conclusion of the Appeal
Ultimately, the Division Bench found no legal infirmity in the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the intra-court appeal, allowing the ICC to proceed with its inquiry. The court also took into account the Supreme Court’s earlier directive for the employer to conclude departmental proceedings expeditiously, noting that the time frame set by the apex court was nearing completion.
The case, titled Aloke Kumar Ghoshal v. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati & Ors., serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of addressing workplace harassment complaints independently of criminal proceedings, ensuring that victims receive the necessary support and justice.
Note: This article is based on the judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court and aims to provide an overview of the legal proceedings and implications of the ruling regarding the POSH Act.
