Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

The PoSH Gap Series – Strengthening Workplace Investigations

This article, the second in our PoSH Gap Series, examines one of the most common reasons internal committee ("IC") findings are overturned by courts; procedural violations that deny respondents their fundamental right to a fair hearing.

Speed vs Efficiency – What should the IC choose?

The IC receives a complaint alleging sexual harassment by one of your employees – the allegations made are shocking and disturbing. The IC, in an attempt to resolve this disturbing issue quickly, conducts its investigations in 30 days and submits it final report to you, the senior management. Confident that swift action demonstrates your organisations commitment in maintain a safe workplace, you implement the recommendation. Six months later, you receive a legal notice challenging the inquiry on grounds of procedural violations and denial of natural justice.

This scenario plays out more often than you might think. While the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act") prescribed a time limit of 90 days for completion of the inquiry, it also requires adherence to principles of natural justice, i.e., giving all parties involved equal opportunity to present their side of the story.

Often times, organisations and the IC rush to complete investigations in an attempt to solve the issue, creating significant legal risks. When inquiries are rushed, when parties are not provided fair hearings, or when parties are denied adequate opportunity to defend themselves, courts have not hesitated to set aside IC findings, regardless of the merits of the underlying complaint.

In this article, we will look at what constitutes principles of natural justice, how courts have interpreted them and what ICs and organisations can do to ensure procedural fairness.

What are Principles of Natural Justice?

Principles of natural justice are basic rules of fairness that ensure IC inquiries are conducted fairly. Think of them as guardrails that guide the inquiry. These principles boil down to two simple ideas; first, the IC members must be neutral, i.e., they cannot have any bias toward either party involved in the inquiry. Second, both the complainant and respondent must get a fair chance to tell their side of the story. The steps that meet the principles would include providing the respondent with a copy of the complaint, allowing the respondent to provide a response to the allegations, and provide the respondent with an opportunity to question or challenge the evidence against them. The PoSH Act does not explicitly discuss these principles, but courts have consistently held that they are essential to every IC inquiry. If an IC ignores these basic fairness rules, for instance, by rushing through an inquiry without giving the respondent time to prepare, or by denying them the right to cross-examine the complainant, courts will set aside the IC's findings, no matter the intensity of allegations.

How have Courts interpreted violation of Principles of Natural Justice?

The Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors.¹ set aside the findings of the IC on the grounds that the inquiry was conducted in undue haste, denying the respondent a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court emphasised that even when a respondent is repeatedly absent, procedural safeguards cannot be abandoned. In this case, while the respondent repeatedly sought adjournments of the hearings, the IC conducted the inquiry at a lightning speed by conducting back-to-back interviews, providing the respondent with a large volume of material generated from these interviews, and expecting the respondent to familiarise himself with this material within a short span of time. While the High Court initially upheld the inquiry, the Supreme Court intervened, highlighting that adherence to natural justice principles is non-negotiable, even in ex parte proceedings.

Similarly, the Calcutta High Court² in 2020 recognised the respondent's right to cross-examination and observed that while the PoSH Act, 2013 does not expressly provide for a right to cross-examine, the inquiry of the IC cannot stand the test of scrutiny by courts if the right to cross-examine has not been provided to the respondent. In this case, the respondent was neither provided with a copy of the complaint nor with the right to cross-examine.

An IC's report was quashed by the Kerala High Court³ on account of not providing the respondent with a copy of the complaint. In this case, the IC conducted the query, interviewed witnesses, and prepared a final report. The report was challenged by the respondent on the grounds that he was neither served a copy of the complaint nor allowed to cross-examine. The court observed that the IC failed to observe principles of natural justice in its inquiry process and ordered that a new IC be constituted to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter.

What should ICs consider?

As seen in a number of precedents, the IC's report is often challenged on the basis of "procedural fairness". The following points should be considered to maintain procedural fairness during the inquiry process:

1. Providing complete Documentation: The IC should provide complete documentation received from either side to the other side, transparently. In addition, maintain requesting parties to acknowledge receipt of such documentation and maintaining the same would demonstrate that transparency was maintained throughout the inquiry process.
2. Explaining the rights available under law: Often, parties involved in the process are unaware of the rights available under law, including the right to cross-examine, which may lead to allegations of procedural unfairness. To avoid this, the IC should take proactive steps to provide a clear summary of the procedure to the parties in its first meeting with them and by also sharing the organisation's anti-sexual harassment policy.
3. Balance speed with fairness: The 90-day timeline is important, but courts have consistently held that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for speed. If a respondent requests additional time to gather evidence or engage counsel, evaluate such requests reasonably. Document the reasons for granting or denying extensions. A procedurally sound inquiry that takes a reasonable time is more defensible than a rushed inquiry that courts will set aside.

Why does this matter?

Procedural violations undermine the entire PoSH inquiry process. When ICs follow proper procedures such as providing complete documentation, ensuring cross-examination rights, and maintaining neutrality, their findings are far more likely to withstand legal challenge. Organisations that prioritise these procedural safeguards not only comply with the law but also establish credible and trusted workplace systems. Natural justice is not a technicality; it is the foundation that makes IC findings defensible in court. Investing time in proper procedures at the inquiry stage prevents costly legal challenges, re-investigations, and reputational damage later.

Footnotes

1 Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014.

2 Nutrition & Ors vs Suddhasil Dey & Anr., WPCT 137 of 2019.

3 Vineeth V.V. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors., WP (C) No. 9331 of 2024.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.