Can there be a parallel inquiry process under POSH Act for the redressal of complaints of workplace sexual harassment? The Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, more commonly known as the POSH Act, mandates an employer and the government to establish the Internal Committee (IC) and the Local Committee (LC), respectively, to address workplace sexual harassment complaints.
However, time and again, there have been instances where Indian courts have aimed to answer the above question. Recently, in Dr Sajan Kurien Mathew v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Writ Petition no 1662 of 2026], in an order dated 15 May 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a parallel inquiry authority cannot probe POSH complaints outside the IC and LC mechanism. On 24 April 2026, in RS v. DU [W.P.(C) 14760/2025], the Delhi High Court held that an employer cannot set up an ad-hoc Fact-Finding Committee before the IC’s inquiry.
In the past, there have also been instances where the courts have adjudicated upon the jurisprudence of a parallel inquiry process.
What Is a Parallel Inquiry Process under POSH Act?
A parallel inquiry process refers to an independent probe into a workplace sexual harassment complaint by authorities or committees in addition to the IC or LC. Usually, disciplinary, ethics, compliance, HR, or fact-finding committees are imposed with the responsibility to conduct a parallel inquiry process. An organisation may have such committees in existence at the time of the receipt of the complaint, or it may constitute one for such purposes.
Statutory Authority of an IC and LC
In Sohail Malik (Dr.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed:
The POSH Act does not merely punish acts of sexual harassment, but actively imposes a legal duty on employers to prohibit and prevent harassment, it ensures that the women in each workplace have open access to a mechanism for redressal of complaints of sexual harassment in the form of ICC. It aims to bring about safety and accountability in the workplace in order to enable women to pursue their career without the fear of a hostile environment. It is thus seen that the POSH Act is a social welfare legislation and it must be interpreted as thus.
Further, in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the IC is the statutory inquiry authority in workplace sexual harassment complaints. Its report is not a preliminary fact-finding exercise, but the inquiry report itself. The disciplinary authority is required to act on the IC’s findings in accordance with the applicable service rules rather than conduct a parallel or substitute inquiry.
In Pradip Mandal v. Union of India, the Calcutta High Court held:
The scheme of the said Act of 2013, though it is telescoped into the disciplinary proceedings available against employees, gives a somewhat exalted status to an inquiry report under Section 13 thereof than an ordinary inquiry report would command before a disciplinary authority in a departmental action. In Section 13(4) of the said Act making the recommendation of the committee binding on the employer and in Section 18 thereof providing an appellate remedy against the findings or recommendation of a committee under Section 13 of the said Act, the final recommendation cannot be tinkered with by the employer or its disciplinary authority or regular appellate authority. The findings become binding and the only exercise that is to be undertaken by a disciplinary authority is to consider the quantum of punishment that is warranted in a given set of circumstances.
Section 11 of the POSH Act imposes the responsibility of inquiring into a complaint upon the IC and LC, as applicable. The relevant provision is reproduced below:
11. Inquiry into complaint.—
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable: […]
Therefore, it is clear from the structure of the POSH Act, and the abovementioned pronouncements that the IC and LC are carefully designed mechanisms to deal with workplace sexual harassment complaints. A parallel inquiry process under POSH Act may vitiate the IC and LC’s thoroughly established authority.
Courts’ Interpretation of The Parallel Inquiry Process under POSH Act
In both cases, the courts have emphasised the manner of inquiry that makes the POSH redressal mechanism unique and specific for workplace sexual harassment complaints.
In Dr. Sajan Kurien Mathew v. State of MP, the court said:
Therefore, if an employer is allowed to constitute a parallel enquiry authority, other than ICC or LCC, to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment by a woman at workplace, the same would frustrate the object of the POSH Act inasmuch as the confidentiality which is to be maintained in such cases would be breached and there are chances of undue influence and pressure on the enquiring authority. Further, the enquiry authority constituted by employer may not be consisting of members specialized in handling such complaints of sensitive nature. Further, when the enquiry is conducted outside the scope of POSH Act, there is no timeline provided and it would be left to the wisdom of enquiring authority. Whereas, the POSH provides for a timeline within which the enquiry needs to be concluded by ICC/LCC.
In RS v. DU, the court held that if there is another Committee mandated to inquire into workplace sexual harassment complaints, such Committee would be de hors the POSH Act and in “complete violation” of it. Further, the constitution of such Committee, before the complaint is sent to the IC or LC, violates the statute, which states that the IC or LC “shall inquire into the said complaint.”
In this case, the institution had established an ad hoc Fact-Finding Committee to investigate the complaint before the IC. The court reiterated concerns related to a lack of a specialised environment and atmosphere that the complainant may be forced to enter into in such inquiries.
The court also stressed the criticality of adhering to timelines laid down under the POSH Act. It held:
Moreover, such an ad hoc committee could also serve as a means to delay the substantive inquiry under the PoSH Act. The complaint of a genuine victim would then hangfire till the ad hoc committee concludes its inquiry.
It further added that there is no rule, law, or regulation that governs the constitution of such a Committee. As a result, no timelines for the completion of its inquiry are provided. Whereas the IC and LC are “as envisaged under the POSH Act are specialized bodies containing members having the requisite expertise to deal with matters of such sensitivity. The scheme of the POSH Act also requires a deadline driven, time-limit constrained adjudication.”
Conclusion
By establishing and emphasising that the inquiry authority remains with the IC and LC, the POSH Act and the courts have ensured strict procedural guidelines for a timely and confidential inquiry process. These pronouncements further solidify the need to adhere to the due process mandated by the POSH Act. Organisations must rest the statutory authority to inquire into workplace sexual harassment complaints with their respective ICs for their inquiries to survive the law’s scrutiny.
At POSH at Work, a brand of The Legal Swan, we provide organisations with 360° solutions against sexual harassment. To learn more, write to us at connect@thelegalswan.com.