On 16 July 2026, a Pune Magisterial Court held that the setting aside of an Internal Committee’s (IC) inquiry report by an appellate authority does not, by itself, give rise to criminal liability against every IC member.
Facts of the Case
Judicial Magistrate First-Class (JMFC) U.S.M. Alamodi was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complaint’) filed by a former Vice Principal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complainant’), accused by a female employee (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused’) of allegedly sexually harassing her. The complainant alleged that the accused filed a false complaint against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (POSH) Act, 2013, out of personal vengeance after he had scrutinised her work following complaints from students.
He also claimed that the IC members “entered into a criminal conspiracy” by illegally reconstituting the IC, appointing members without authority, assisting the accused during the inquiry, leaking confidential documents, allowing unauthorised persons to interfere in the proceedings, ignoring exculpatory evidence, relying on hearsay evidence, and ultimately submitting a biased report holding him guilty of sexual harassment.
The complainant appealed against the IC’s inquiry report, under Section 18 of the POSH Act, which the appellate authority set aside on the ground that it did not prove the allegations of sexual harassment.
Based on the above, the complainant filed the present complaint, seeking the registration of an FIR or the issuance of process against the accused and the IC members under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including criminal conspiracy, fabricating false evidence, using evidence known to be false, and defamation.
What Did the Court Say?
An Investigating Officer submitted a report pursuant to a direction under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedural Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The report stated that the complainant had raised serious allegations regarding irregularities in the IC’s constitution and functioning, including the alleged appointment of unauthorised members, the exchange of emails between the external member and the accused before cross-examination, and procedural irregularities during the inquiry.
The report further notes that the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the complainant and accused…
[…] did not contain objectionable material supporting the allegations of sexual harassment and that the appellate authority ultimately held that merely speaking in a loud or angry voice does not amount to sexual harassment under the POSH Act.
The court stated that the present complaint is founded upon the claim that the IC’s inquiry was biased, conducted contrary to the provisions of the POSH Act and UGC Regulations, and that the accused and IC members conspired to ensure an adverse report against the complainant. It added:
Even if the allegations regarding procedural irregularities, exchange of emails, appointment of members or appreciation of evidence are accepted at face value, they primarily disclose alleged defects in the conduct of a statutory departmental inquiry. Such allegations, by themselves, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Further, the court held that the complainant has already availed the statutory appellate remedy provided under the POSH Act. The appellate authority has examined the legality and correctness of the IC’s inquiry report and set it aside, holding that the allegation of sexual harassment was not proved.
It stated:
Thus, the grievance regarding the inquiry has already been redressed in the statutory proceedings. The setting aside of the ICC report cannot, by itself, give rise to criminal liability against every member of the committee.
The court also emphasised that the allegations of exchanging emails, preparing questions, and providing procedural assistance during the inquiry to the accused “are matters which may indicate bias or irregularity in the inquiry process,” if they are assumed to be true. However, they do not establish the commission of offences of abetment or criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 45, 46, or 61 of the BNS.
It also dismissed allegations of defamation, stating that the present complaint arises from the sexual harassment complaint made to the IC and its report discharged as part of its official functions. The complainant has not produced material showing that the IC published any defamatory accusation outside the scope of the statutory proceedings with the requisite criminal intent. Additionally, publishing newsletter reports that do not include specific allegations connecting the IC with such publication cannot constitute sufficient grounds to proceed.
The court held that at the highest, the material indicates that the complainant disputes the fairness and legality of the IC proceedings and the appellate authority has already examined that matter.
Conclusion
This judgment reiterates the importance of the statutory availability of an appellate mechanism under the POSH Act, 2013. Section 18 of the Act states:
18. Appeal.—
(1) Any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non-implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said person or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of ninety days of the recommendations.
Appeals are provided under the POSH Act to redress any grievances that either party may have regarding the IC’s inquiry report. In the present case, the complainant had already availed the statutory appellate mechanism. The appellate authority set aside the IC’s inquiry report because it did not prove any sexual harassment allegation. This marks the redressal of the complainant’s grievance. Emphasising that just because the IC’s inquiry report is found to be legally incorrect and is therefore set aside by the appellate authority, the IC members do not attract any criminal liability is an important step towards safeguarding IC members.
In the present case, the complainant was unable to prove any allegations of criminal conspiracy, using fraudulent evidence, and defamation. While the IC’s report may not have been legally incorrect, there was no criminal intention.
Employers must organise rigorous capacity-building and refresher sessions for their IC members to ensure that they are capable of handling POSH inquiries in a fair and just manner. Exercising criminal intent in any inquiry proceeding with the intention of compromising it shall lead to serious consequences.
Write to connect@thelegalswan.com to organise capacity-building sessions for your IC.