JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners – who are complainants under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [hereafter ‘PoSH Act‟], assail (i) the order dated 28.07.2026 issued by respondent no. 2/Kalindi College [hereafter „the College‟], constituting a fresh Internal Committee [hereafter „new IC‟] to inquire into their complaint, and (ii) the Speaking Order dated 16.07.2026 passed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor of respondent no. 1/University of Delhi [hereafter „the University‟], alongwith consequential directions, including for constitution of a fresh committee at the level of the University.

2. Since the present proceedings arise out of a complaint under the PoSH Act, the identity of the petitioners, is not being disclosed in this judgment, in view of Section 16 thereof.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as set out in the petition, are that, the petitioners are Associate Professors in the Departments of Zoology and Political Science of the College, which is a constituent college of University of Delhi. On 07.07.2025, a joint written complaint to the Principal of the College was submitted by the petitioners alleging that respondent nos. 10 to 13, who are members of the teaching faculty of the College, had subjected them to harassment, intimidation and derogatory as well as sexually coloured remarks, including in the Staff Association WhatsApp group and in a meeting of the Staff Association held on 03.07.2025, thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent no. 14, who was then a member of the Internal Complaints Committee of the College [hereafter „the earlier ICC‟], was alleged to have deleted a message of one of the said respondents from the WhatsApp group.

4. On 22.07.2025, the petitioners had objected to the continuance of respondent no. 14 as a member of the earlier ICC. Thereafter, respondent no. 14 had himself sought recusal on 30.07.2025, however, the said request was declined by the College on 05.08.2025. The earlier ICC had concluded its inquiry vide report dated 19.09.2025, holding that the allegations were “not sexual in nature”, and the said report was accepted by the Governing Body of the College on 22.01.2026. Representations were made to the Chairperson of the governing body, and the petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal dated 22.12.2025 to the Vice-Chancellor, praying, inter alia, that the report be set aside and a fresh inquiry be conducted “by a newly constituted, impartial, and unbiased Internal Committee”.

5. The said appeal remained undecided. The petitioners, in the meantime, approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 1793/2026, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2026 in the following terms:

“1. The petitioner has made various submissions and has stated that the entire inquiry is vitiated on many accounts, more particularly, since the allegations are against the Chairman of the governing body.

2. The Court, however, finds that the appeal against the Internal Complaints Committee‟s recommendations has not been decided by any of the authorities.

3. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the Vice Chancellor to decide the appeal independently.

4. Let the decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order passed today.

5. If the grievance of the petitioners is not mitigated, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

6. With these observations, petition stands disposed of.

7. All rights and contentions are left open.”

6. An application was thereafter moved by the petitioners and paragraph 1 of the above mentioned order was modified, vide order dated 26.05.2026, to the extent that it would read that „the allegations are against the Governing Body and ICC‟.

7. The Vice-Chancellor of the Uni