The Delhi High Court has held that a mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to invalidate the constitution of an Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act). The Court ruled that allegations of bias must be supported by cogent material demonstrating a real likelihood of bias.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the judgment on October 27, 2026, while dismissing a petition filed by two associate professors of Kalindi College, University of Delhi. The professors had challenged the constitution of a fresh Internal Committee to investigate their sexual harassment complaint, alleging that its composition raised concerns about impartiality.
Background
The petitioners had submitted a joint complaint on July 7, 2025, alleging harassment, intimidation and sexually coloured remarks by fellow faculty members. They also alleged that the incidents had created a hostile working environment.
The college's earlier Internal Complaints Committee concluded its inquiry in September 2025, finding that the allegations were not sexual in nature. After the college's Governing Body accepted the report, the professors appealed to the University of Delhi's Vice-Chancellor, seeking a fresh inquiry by an impartial committee.
On July 16, 2026, the Vice-Chancellor set aside the earlier inquiry and directed the college to constitute a fresh Internal Committee in accordance with the applicable regulations. The new committee was constituted on July 28, 2026, without any members of the earlier committee.
The professors subsequently approached the High Court, challenging both the Vice-Chancellor's decision and the composition of the newly constituted committee.
The petitioners argued that the college Principal, who constituted the new committee, had previously taken administrative decisions connected with their grievances. They also questioned the inclusion of a faculty member who had attended the Staff Association meeting mentioned in their complaint and an employee working under the Principal.
Rejecting these objections, the Court emphasised that suspicion alone cannot establish disqualifying bias.
"mere apprehension of bias is not enough and there must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion."
The Court observed that the Principal was not a respondent in the original complaint and that dissatisfaction with earlier administrative decisions did not establish a personal or financial interest in the inquiry's outcome.
It also held that merely attending the Staff Association meeting did not establish that the faculty member was connected with, involved in or interested in the subject matter of the complaint. Similarly, an employee's administrative subordination to the Principal was not, by itself, sufficient to disqualify that person from the committee.
On the external member's appointment, the Court found that the earlier procedural defect had been addressed by appointing a distinct external member to the new committee.
The Court found no legal infirmity in either the Vice-Chancellor's order dated July 16, 2026, or the order constituting the new Internal Committee on July 28, 2026.
Observing that the complaint had remained pending for more than fifteen months, Justice Sharma directed the committee to endeavour to complete the inquiry within 90 days from receiving a copy of the judgment, in accordance with the PoSH Act, its rules, the UGC Regulations and the principles of natural justice.
The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly dismissed, subject to these directions.
