By Anuradha Gandhi and Abhishekta Sharma
INTRODUCTION
The framework established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act, 2013) exist to give women a safe and dignified working environment. While the statute is primarily victim-centric, it also gives the accused certain fair process rights, including, in many institutions, the right to appeal an adverse finding before it is acted upon. This situation has been dealt with in the case of Madhya Pradesh High Court[1] dealing with striking a balance between protecting complainants and preserving the due process rights of accused individuals.
The case raises an important procedural question: Can significant consequences, such as compensation orders, be imposed based on an Internal Committee (IC) report when a statutory appeal against that report is still pending? The Court answered this question in the negative and emphasized the importance of respecting the appellate process under the POSH regime.
BACKGROUND
The appellant served as the Vice Chancellor of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE). A yoga instructor employed by the Institute filed a complaint before the Internal Committee alleging that she had been subjected to sexual harassment in the year 2019 where present appellant was working.
Pursuant to the complaint, the Internal Committee (IC) initiated an inquiry and submitted its findings via the inquiry report dated September 21, 2020, holding the allegations to be established. However, no penal or disciplinary action was recommended in the report.
Aggrieved by the findings and recommendations of the IC, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013 read with Clause 8(5) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015.However, the said appeal remained pending before the competent appellate authority.
Before this appeal could be decided, the Respondent approached the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court by way of a writ petition seeking, inter alia, compensation and other consequential reliefs arising from the findings of the IC.
By an order dated July 15, 2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed payment of compensation amounting to ₹35 lakh by the appellant, ₹5 lakh on the concerned State authorities for the delay in the registration and investigation of the criminal case and ₹1 lakh on LNIPE for its casual approach in dealing with the matter and failing to ensure timely redressal of the complaint.
Aggrieved by the compensation order passed despite the pendency of his statutory appeal, the appellant approached the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The principal issue before the court was whether compensation and other adverse consequences could be imposed on the basis of an IC finding report when the statutory appeal against those very findings were still pending and undecided before the Appellate Authority?
COURT FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The Division Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Justice Mr. Anand Pathak and Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ashish Shroti allowed the appeal.
The Court observed that permitting the compensation order to operate during the pendency of the statutory appeal would effectively presume the appellant’s guilt before the appellate forum had an opportunity to independently evaluate the evidence and correctness of the IC’s findings.
According to the court, the right of appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive statutory right. Once such a right is conferred by the legislation, it must be meaningful and effective. Any action that prejudices the appellate process or renders the appeal illusory would defeat the legislative intent.
The Court further noted that the Appellate Authority must be allowed to independently examine the evidence, hear both parties and determine whether the findings recorded by the IC are sustainable. Only thereafter can consequential reliefs or penalties flowing from those findings be considered.
Accordingly, the Division Bench:
- Set aside the compensation order
- Remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration
- Directed the Appellate Authority to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties and
- Requested that appeal be decided preferably within two months from the parties first appearance.
Importantly, the Court consciously refrained from commenting upon the merits of the allegations, leaving that determination entirely to the Appellate Authority.
IMPORTANCE OF JUDGEMENT
On sequencing of remedies: Where a respondent has a pending statutory appeal against an IC finding, courts may be reluctant to grant substantive relief flowing from the finding, such as compensation, until the departmental appeal has been decided. This preserves the appellate authority’s role as the first forum to test the correctness of the IC’s findings.
On the right to appeal: The judgment reiterates that the appellate mechanism under Section 18 of the POSH Act is an essential safeguard rather than a mere procedural step. An appeal must be capable of providing effective relief, which would not be possible if penalties are implemented before the appeal is decided.
On institutional record-keeping: The uncertainty before the court over whether the appeal had actually been filed and received highlights the importance of institutions maintain clear, verifiable records of appeals filed under Section 18 of the POSH Act and applicable services regulations.
Upholding the principle of natural justice:. The judgment reinforces that adverse consequences should not follow until the statutory process has run its course. Fair hearing, impartial review and independent consideration by the appellate authority remain integral components of the POSH framework.
On timeline: By directing the appellate authority to decide the matter within two months of parties’ first appearance, the court has sought to ensure that remand does not translate into indefinite delay for either party.
Conclusion
The judgment serves as a critical checkpoint in POSH litigation. By recognizing the statutory appeal as a meaningful safeguard and preventing enforcement of compensation before appellate adjudication, the Court has reinforced that procedural fairness remains central to administration of justice under the POSH Act. The judgment strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring timely redressal for complainants and preserving the legal rights available to respondents, thereby strengthening the integrity and credibility of the POSH framework as a whole.
Shivansh Maurya, Former Intern at S.S. Rana & Co., has assisted in the research of this Article.
[1] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/02/dilip-kumar-dureha-v-smt-anusha-deepak-tyagi-683689.pdf