On November 11, 2024, the Kerala High Court delivered a landmark ruling that reinforces the limitations of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) findings in cases of workplace sexual harassment. The court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings, highlighting significant flaws in the ICC inquiry process. This judgment underscores the necessity of impartial investigations and robust legal scrutiny to ensure justice for victims.
Case Overview
In this case, Amjith, the principal of S.N. College, was accused by a female staff member of workplace harassment. The complainant alleged that the accused made sexually suggestive comments repeatedly, while demanding sexual favours. He also allegedly threatened her with memos, transfers, and suspension if she did not comply with his advances. The complainant further claimed that the accused made defamatory statements about her during staff and PTA meetings which prompted the complainant to file an FIR.
Following the complaint, the police charged the accused under Sections 354-A (sexual harassment), 354-D (stalking), and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 119(A) of the Kerala Police Act. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a final report recommending trial proceedings.
The accused, however, sought to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, arguing that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the college had already cleared him of the allegations. According to the ICC report, the accusations were deemed baseless, and the findings were presented as a defence in court.
However, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, rejected this argument. The court highlighted severe deficiencies in the ICC's investigation process and emphasised that such findings could not override the conclusions of a criminal inquiry conducted by law enforcement authorities.
Judicial Criticism of the ICC Process
Justice A. Badharudeen's judgment delivered a strong critique of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) process, highlighting critical failures in its inquiry and emphasising the necessity of adhering to the procedural and ethical mandates outlined in the PoSH Act, 2013. His observations underscored the gravity of ensuring fairness and impartiality in workplace harassment investigations. The key criticisms include:
Bias and Unilateral Findings:
The ICC's report was deemed biased and skewed in favour of protecting the institution rather than delivering justice to the complainant. The court highlighted how the ICC failed to maintain a balanced perspective, showing an inclination to safeguard the accused without giving adequate weight to the complainant's allegations. Justice Badharudeen emphasised that such partiality compromises the ICC's role as a neutral arbiter, undermining the confidence in its findings.
Failure to Record the Complainant’s Testimony:
One of the most glaring lapses identified by the court was the ICC's failure to interview or record the statement of the complainant. This omission violated the principles of natural justice, as the victim's testimony is a cornerstone of any fair and thorough inquiry. Justice Badharudeen noted that ignoring this critical step rendered the ICC's findings incomplete and inherently unreliable. The absence of the complainant's narrative not only weakened the report but also signalled procedural negligence.
Incomplete Inquiry and Procedural Failures:
The court found that the ICC had not adhered to the procedural requirements mandated by the PoSH Act, 2013. The ICC's inquiry lacked transparency and impartiality, failing to meet the standards set for handling sexual harassment complaints. Specific procedural gaps included insufficient evidence gathering, inadequate documentation of witness accounts, and a failure to ensure confidentiality during the investigation. Justice Badharudeen stressed that the ICC's inability to follow these guidelines highlighted a systemic issue in how workplace harassment cases are handled by some institutions.
Court’s Stance on ICC Findings in Criminal Cases
Justice Badharudeen clarified that ICC findings, especially those plagued by procedural flaws, cannot take precedence over evidence collected through police investigations. The judgment reinforced the principle that ICCs function within a specific framework, but their findings are not definitive in criminal law. Independent investigations by law enforcement authorities remain crucial for determining guilt or innocence.
The court further clarified that while the ICC is empowered under the PoSH Act to make recommendations, including pursuing criminal action, its authority does not override existing criminal laws. The court emphasised that the victim retains the right to directly approach the police for filing a complaint. It further clarified that police investigations and findings cannot be disregarded simply because an ICC report contradicts them. This judgment underlines that ICC proceedings are supplementary to, not replacements for, criminal justice mechanisms. Such alignment ensures that workplace harassment cases are addressed holistically, adhering to both institutional and legal standards.
The Role of External Members in ICCs:
To ensure objectivity and impartiality in workplace harassment inquiries, the inclusion of external members in Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) is crucial. These external members, who may include legal experts, HR professionals, or individuals with experience in workplace dynamics, help mitigate biases that may arise within the organization. Their presence ensures that the ICC process is not unduly influenced by internal power structures or personal relationships, thus promoting fairness and transparency.
Having legal experts on the committee is particularly valuable, as they bring a strong understanding of relevant laws, including the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act (PoSH Act), and can help ensure that the inquiry adheres to legal standards. Similarly, HR professionals can contribute their knowledge of organisational practices and help maintain an environment of trust and confidentiality, which is essential for a sensitive inquiry.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s judgment highlights the need for more rigorous and impartial investigations into workplace harassment. It underscores the importance of ensuring neutrality within ICC processes and suggests that procedural flaws can significantly compromise the integrity of the inquiry. The role of external members in ICCs cannot be overstated; by including individuals with legal and professional expertise, organisations can foster an environment of fairness, transparency, and accountability. This will strengthen the overall process of addressing workplace harassment and ensure that the rights of both complainants and accused are respected. Moreover, this judgment reinforces the necessity of aligning internal inquiries with broader legal standards, ensuring that the integrity of criminal investigations is maintained, and that ICC reports do not supersede legal processes.
Comentários