Back
When Committees Falter, Justice Can't Wait: Gauhati HC Revives Stalled POSH Probe
In a landmark ruling emphasizing women's unyielding rights under the —commonly known as the —the dismissed a writ petition by professor Aloke Kumar Ghosal. Justice Devashis Baruah held that the 's earlier inaction cannot doom a legitimate complaint, ordering a fresh preliminary inquiry into allegations dating back to 2014. The decision underscores that procedural defaults by institutions, not complainants, bear the consequences.
A Decade-Long Shadow Over Campus
The saga began in when a female complainant, referred to as "X," alleged sexual harassment—and more serious offenses—by Ghosal, then a professor of chemical engineering at . She filed an FIR under at the and approached the IIT's ICC the same month.
The ICC demurred thrice: in meetings on and , citing the criminal case as , and in a report invoking limitation under due to a four-year delay. Ghosal faced suspension (later quashed by the High Court in 2017, upheld till intervention in 2025), arrests, and bail, amid parallel departmental skirmishes.
Fast-forward to 2022: IIT formed a preliminary committee (Office Order ), which recommended ICC reexamination. The ICC then issued a notice to Ghosal on , prompting his writ challenging the report and notice. The , in Civil Appeal No. 11889/2025 (order ), meanwhile directed expeditious departmental proceedings against Ghosal.
Petitioner's Shield: Closure and Compliance
Ghosal argued the ICC had thrice closed the matter—2014, 2015, and 2018—rendering revival . He claimed the 2022 committee was unauthorized, proceedings malicious, barred by limitation, and impermissible review under Section 4. Prior writs had quashed his suspension and stalled probes, reinforcing his plea for finality.
IIT's Counter: Duty Over Delay
Respondents, led by IIT Director and ICC Chairperson, countered that initial ICC reports weren't proper inquiries under —they merely recused without fact-finding, ignoring irrelevance. Citing the 's Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2751) and 's OM dated , they stressed ICC's dual role: preliminary probe first, then disciplinary inquiry. The 2022 report was internal, spurring rightful ICC action; delay faulted the ICC, not X.
Unpacking the Verdict: Welfare Trumps Technicalities
Justice Baruah dissected 's scheme, rooted in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, as social welfare legislation safeguarding rights to equality, dignity, and safe work. ICCs must conduct mandatory preliminary/fact-finding inquiries (per Dr. Sohail Malik , detailing two-stage process via OM ), forwarding reports to employers for potential chargesheets.
Prior ICC actions?
"Abdicated its duties... failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law."
No
bar exists; limitation excuses don't apply when ICC's fault causes delay. The 2022 committee, though external to POSH, validly flagged lapses. Echoing summaries from legal portals, the Court affirmed: procedural inaction can't
"extinguish a complainant's substantive right."
Precedents like Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 311 elevated ICCs to inquiring authorities under —amended post- Vishaka .
Key Observations
"The ICC so constituted by the Respondent No. 1, abdicated its duties reposed upon them by the provisions of ."
"On account of the fault of the ICC for not carrying out the responsibility reposed upon them by law, the grievance of X cannot remain unredressed."
"The Act of 2013 is a social welfare legislation, and it has to be interpreted thus."
"The technical argument that the Inquiry was to be completed within a period of 3 months... cannot debar the aggrieved woman to seek redressal under the Act of 2013, if the ICC had failed to act as per law."
Mandate for Momentum: Fresh Start, Swift Finish
The writ stands dismissed; interim stays vacated. IIT's ICC must
"forthwith initiate the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry"
per OM
. Post-report, the disciplinary authority assesses chargesheet viability; if issued, ICC conducts formal inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules. Proceedings to expedite per
timelines.
This ruling fortifies POSH enforcement: institutions can't evade via inertia. For workplaces, it's a clarion call—act promptly or face revival, no matter the years. Complainants gain robust recourse; accused, procedural safeguards in mandated two-stage probes. A win for accountability in academia and beyond.
