By Vikrant Rana , Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction:
The concept of natural justice is deeply rooted in legal systems across the world. Derived from the Roman term “jus natural”, it embodies fundamental fairness, equity and the right to a fair hearing.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act was enacted to address and prevent sexual harassment at workplaces in India. Central to this legislation lies the principles of natural justice, which are fundamental to ensuring a fair and unbiased inquiry process in the investigation and adjudication of complaints pertaining to sexual harassment at workplaces.
In this article, we will delve into the key principles of natural justice under POSH Act, along with relevant case laws that illustrate their application.
The question that arises now is, in what manner the principles of natural justice have to be secured in the enquiry conducted in a complaint relating to the sexual harassment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India observed on principles of natural justice which is as follows:
“What is natural justice? The rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however, be summarized in one word: fairness. In other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would depend on situation and context.”[1]
Overview of the Principle of Natural Justice:
- Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias):
The Latin maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” translates to “one cannot be a judge in their own cause”. This principle mandates that the deciding authority i.e., the Internal Committee (IC) must remain neutral and impartial while adjudicating any case.In the context of POSH inquiry, it means that the IC members should not have any personal interest or bias that could affect their judgment. Any prejudicial statements or preconceived notions should not influence the outcome. The decision should be free from any personal bias or favoritism or conflict of interest.
In the case of Tejinder Kaur vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized the dual role of Internal Committee under the POSH Act stating
“As the Complaints Committees also act as Inquiring Authority in terms of Rule 14(2), care has to be taken that at the investigation stage that impartiality is maintained. Any failure on this account may invite allegations of bias when conducting the inquiry and may result in the inquiry getting vitiated. As per the instructions, when allegations of bias are received against an Inquiring Authority, such Inquiring Authority is required to stay the inquiry till the Disciplinary Authority takes a decision on the allegations of bias. Further, if allegations of bias are established against one member of the Committee on this basis, that Committee may not be allowed to conduct the inquiry.”[2]
In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the ICC must be constituted in accordance with the guidelines prescribed under the POSH Act and should consist of members who are neutral and unbiased. Any perceived conflict of interest may compromise the integrity of the inquiry process.
- The limited question that arises here is whether the constitution of the Internal Committee can be faulted on account of bias?
The same concern was addressed in the case of Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University and Anr (2018)[3], wherein the petitioner seek reconstitution of the Internal Committee on the ground of bias since the Presiding Officer was a witness to the incident. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited the earlier precedents being passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter related thereto stating that
“In S. Parthasarthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh: 1974 (3) SCC 459, the Supreme Court had explained the test of bias in the following words:
The test of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion are really inconsistent with each other. We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The Court must look at the impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. If right minded persons would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the part of an inquiring officer, he must not conduct the enquiry.”
The Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors: 2001 (1) SCC 182 wherein it was observed that:
“…The question in such cases would not be whether there would be biased. The question would be whether there is reasonable ground for believing that there is likelihood of apparent bias. Actual bias only would lead to automatic disqualification where the decision-maker is shown to have an interest in the outcome of the case. The principle of real likelihood of bias has now taken a tilt to- real danger of bias and suspicion of bias…..”[4]
Given the facts of the case, the Delhi High Court observed that the Presiding Officer, being a witness to the incident, had already recused herself from participating in inquiry proceedings and was also not a part of the IC constituted. Thus, there was no material on record which would even remotely lead to any suspicion that the members of the IC so constituted have any personal interest that would conflict in their obligation to conduct an inquiry fairly and make a fair recommendation. Therefore, the court held that there was no need to re-constitute the bias on mere apprehension of bias.
In Sheela Barse vs. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court held that bias, either actual or apparent, on the part of the adjudicating authority would vitiate the proceedings and render the decision null and void. This principles applies equally to inquiries conducted under the POSH Act.
- The limited question that arises here is whether the constitution of the Internal Committee can be faulted on account of bias?
- Audi Alteram Partem (Rule of Fair Hearing):
The principle of audi alteram partem, or “hear the other side” is fundamental to natural justice. This principle emphasizes that both parties- the complainant and the respondent- must be given a fair opportunity to express their point of view and defend themselves before arriving at a decision. In the context of POSH proceedings, both the parties have the right to be heard. Even the accused has the right to be informed of the allegations levelled against him and to provide their version of story during the investigation.In Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to the accused to present their defense in cases of sexual harassment. The court held that principles of natural justice must be followed in inquiries into allegations of sexual harassment.
- No Double Jeopardy:
Natural justice prohibits double jeopardy which means that a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence. Under the POSH Act, if the Internal Committee (IC) or the Local Committee (LC) finds the respondent/accused guilty of sexual harassment, appropriate cation must be taken in accordance with the law. However, the respondent/accused cannot be subjected to further punishment for the same offence.In Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha (1971), the Supreme Court reiterated the principle of non bis in idem (not twice in the same thing) and held that a person cannot be punished twice for the same offense. This principle applies to disciplinary proceedings under the POSH Act.
Recent Case Law:
In the recent case of Vineeth V.V. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd and Others dated March 12, 2024[5] the petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by way of writ petition for quashing the order of the Internal Committee (IC) as there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice while deciding the charges levelled against the petitioner.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A complaint of sexual harassment was lodged against the petitioner, leading to the initiation of the proceedings by the IC and report was filed subsequently. Following this report, the HR manager of the employer issued a charge memo, and an inquiry officer was appointed based on the IC’s report.
The petitioner contended that though proceedings were initiated by the IC, neither the complaint nor the documents were served on the petitioner which is mandatory under Rule 7 of the POSH Rules, 2013. Moreover, the witnesses were examined in the absence of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to cross examine. Thus the petitioner argue that the proceedings have been conducted violating the principles of natural justice and also against Rule 7 of the POSH Rules.
Additionally, concerns were raised about the President of the IC, who was facing disciplinary actions, casting doubts on the fairness and transparency of the process followed in constituting the IC in accordance with the POSH Act
Judgment:
Upon thorough examination of the facts and the provisions of the POSH Act, the Hon’ble High Court rightfully nullified the report of the IC, affirming that the IC had breached the principles of natural justice.
Additionally, the High Court instructed the respondent to establish a new IC in tune with Section 4 and sub clause 5 of the POSH Ac, considering the petitioner’s substantiated claim that the President of the IC was undergoing disciplinary proceedings. The court further emphasized that the entire proceedings shall be completed in accordance with law strictly following the principles of natural justice and Rule 7 of the POSH Rules after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as well, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment.
This is not the first instance where the court has stressed the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice. In the case of Dr. R.K. Pachauri vs. Union of India and Others, the court reaffirmed the critical role of adhering to these principles in legal proceedings, as they ensure fairness, impartiality and transparency throughout the legal proceedings. [6]
“It is important to take into consideration that ICC is a fact-finding body which gives recommendations on allegations of sexual harassment at workplaces. The very object of the statute states of providing a speedy and hassle free remedy to the victims which is devoid of procedural complexities and rigors of courts and tribunals. The Act of 2013 states that the ICC is not bound by technical procedures but is only to ensure natural justice to parties and thus ICC is a free to devise its procedure depending on peculiar circumstances of the case before it while ensuring natural justice.”
Conclusion:
The principles of natural justice serves as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. In POSH cases, adherence to these principles ensures a fair and transparent process, protecting the rights of both complainants and accused,
As workplaces strive for a harassment-free environment, understanding and applying natural justice principles becomes paramount. Remember, justice is not just about the outcome; it’s also about the process that leads to that outcome
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121304718/
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182441172/
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36129445/
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36129445/
[5] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2157000933120241-529628.pdf
[6] https://ssrana.in/articles/principles-natural-justice-cases-of-sexual-harassment-workplace/