Statutory Timelines Under The PoSH Act For Investigation

The PoSH Gap Series – Strengthening Workplace Investigations

This article, the fourth in our PoSH Gap Series, examines the systemic challenges associated with non-compliance with statutory timelines under the PoSH Act and the resulting impact on the fairness and integrity of the internal committee ("IC") proceedings.

What happens when statutory timelines are not met?

The Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act") prescribes three critical timelines: complainants must file complaints within three months of the incident (with flexibility to condone delay up to three months), ICs must complete inquiries within 90 days, and employers must act on IC recommendations within 60 days. These timelines were designed to ensure swift resolution of sexual harassment complaints. However, real-world complexities such as voluminous evidence, inexperienced IC, witness availability, medical emergencies, and procedural requirements often make strict adherence difficult. The question then arises: are these timelines mandatory or directory? Does exceeding them vitiate the entire inquiry?

In this article, we examine how courts have interpreted timeline requirements under the PoSH Act and provide practical strategies to strike a balance between timely resolution and thorough investigation.

What does the PoSH Act say about the 90-day timelines?

Section 11(4) of the PoSH Act states that the IC "shall" complete its inquiry within a period of 90 days. This provision aligns with the broader framework of the PoSH Act, which is to ensure that complaints are addressed promptly. The language of Section 11(4) is intended to ensure that complaints of sexual harassment are not left unresolved for long periods. However, organisations often struggle to meet the 90-day statutory timeline, and such delays are not always within the IC's control. For example, ICs frequently encounter situations where witnesses refuse to cooperate or fail to attend scheduled meetings, resulting in the loss of several days within the prescribed period. While the IC may compel the witness to appear, it cannot prevent these disruptions from arising in the first place.

With this background, the PoSH Act should ideally provide clearer guidance on the consequences of missing the 90-day timeline. Yet the statute does not specify whether the IC loses jurisdiction after the expiry of this period, whether the complaint stands dismissed, or whether a report submitted beyond the timeline becomes invalid.

How have the courts interpreted the timeline?

The leading judicial interpretation of this provision comes from the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by a Chartered Accountant against the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)¹. In this case, a student filed a sexual harassment complaint, which was referred to ICAI's IC for inquiry. The IC commenced proceedings, issued notices, conducted hearings and collected evidence. The inquiry, however, had not been concluded within 90 days from receipt of the complaint, and the matter had been pending for longer than the statutory period when the writ petition was filed.

One of the main issues raised by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court was that the entire inquiry and the proceedings should be quashed solely because the IC had failed to comply with Section 11(4) of the PoSH Act. The argument was that the word "shall" in Section 11(4) indicates a mandatory requirement, that 90 days is an outer limit, and that continuation of the inquiry beyond this period is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also contended that allowing inquiries to continue beyond 90 days would defeat the very purpose of prescribing a time-bound process under the PoSH Act.

In its judgment, the Delhi High Court rejected this argument and held that the complaint and inquiry proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the committee did not complete the inquiry within 90 days. The court reasoned that complaints of sexual harassment must be treated with appropriate seriousness, and that an inquiry must be carried through to its logical conclusion in the interest of both the complainant and the respondent.

In its judgement, the court referred to an order of the Tripura High Court², where the court observed that the 90 day limit under Section 11(4) should be considered as a guideline and not a hard cut-off. It added that since the PoSH Act does not attach any penalty/consequence to exceeding the 90 days, the provision should not be treated as mandatory, and it would be unfair if a complainant's case failed only due to the committee not finishing in time.

How can IC navigate the timeline challenges?

While the Delhi and Tripura High Courts have clarified that exceeding 90 days' timeline does not automatically invalidate the IC's inquiry, ICs must not treat the timeline as optional. Instead, they should focus on conducting a fair inquiry within the timeline, as reasonably as possible:

1. Treat the 90-day timeline as an outer limit: ICs should plan and structure their investigation workflow to comfortably complete the inquiry within 90 days. This will involve planning hearing schedules, allocating tasks to each member, and ensuring administrative support for documentation and communication. The fact that courts treat the timeline as directory should only be seen as a safety net for complexities and not as a license for unreasonable delays.
2. Documenting reasons for any delay: If the inquiry is likely to go beyond 90 days, the IC should clearly record the reasons in writing in its final report. Reasons that the courts may consider reasonable would include non-cooperation by parties involved in the inquiry, any medical emergencies, or voluminous evidence. Such documentation will help if the delay is later questioned in courts.
3. Monitor internal bottlenecks: In many organisations, the delay is not caused by IC but by internal bottlenecks such as delayed access to documents, or parties' failure to understand the process. The IC should periodically review its proceedings to identify such bottlenecks and address them through training the support staff and employees.

Why does this matter?

The 90-day timeline under the PoSH Act reflects a straightforward principle: sexual harassment complaints should not be allowed to drift. Delays increase the risk of evidence being lost, memories fading, and parties disengaging from the process. For ICs, the message is simply to treat 90 days as the standard. If the inquiry needs to extend beyond this period, ensure reasons are recorded and communicated. This approach supports the two key objectives of the law: timely resolution and a fair process that can withstand scrutiny.

Footnotes

1 CA Nitesh Parashar vs Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 79.

2 Vinay Kumar Rai vs Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 482.

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.