In workplace sexual harassment inquiries under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act), balancing employee trust with administrative integrity is a delicate task. When an inquiry begins, employers and Internal Committees (ICs) often face challenges regarding panel impartiality.

A landmark decision by the Delhi High Court provides vital clarity on when a bias objection warrants reconstituting an Internal Committee, and when it must be turned down to prevent procedural delay.

Why Impartiality Matters in PoSH Inquiries

Natural justice forms the bedrock of any quasi-judicial proceeding. Under the PoSH Act 2013, the Internal Committee holds significant fact-finding, evidentiary, and recommendatory powers. If an IC member has a personal stake, prior involvement in the dispute, or a verified conflict of interest, the inquiry's outcome stands compromised.

However, a recurring compliance challenge for HR leaders, legal teams, and PoSH external members is distinguishing between genuine conflicts of interest and tactical challenges intended to stall proceedings.

Delhi High Court PoSH Ruling: Real Likelihood of Bias vs. Mere Apprehension

In Dr. XXXXXXXX & Anr. v. University of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 13218/2026 & CM APPL. 61510/2026, judgment dated 27 October 2026), Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma addressed when an apprehension of bias in a PoSH inquiry legally justifies replacing panel members.

The petitioners—two associate professors from Kalindi College, University of Delhi (identities protected under Section 16 of the PoSH Act)—challenged the constitution of a freshly formed Internal Committee, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, establishing a key legal precedent: a mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to disqualify an IC or order its reconstitution. The Court held that the objector must produce cogent material demonstrating a real likelihood of bias. Because the petitioners failed to present concrete proof that the newly appointed members were unable to conduct a fair inquiry, the panel was upheld, and the IC was directed to complete the inquiry within 90 days.

What Does Not Amount to Bias in a PoSH Inquiry

The Court evaluated specific objections raised against individual IC members and clarified administrative factors that fall short of legal bias:


When Should an Internal Committee Be Reconstituted?

The judgment also highlighted circumstances where reconstituting an IC is legally necessary.

In this case, an earlier IC inquiry had been set aside for valid reasons:


  1. Prior Involvement: One member of the previous committee was directly connected to or involved in the events under inquiry.
  2. Defective External Member Nomination: The prior external member failed to satisfy statutory criteria under the PoSH Act guidelines.

The institution cured these defects by constituting a fresh IC and appointing an independent Delhi University law professor as the external member. The Court affirmed that replacing members is justified when there is prior involvement in the facts, an un-cured statutory disqualification, or concrete evidence of actual bias.

Practical Compliance Checklist for HR Leaders and ICs

To maintain procedural fairness and uphold Internal Committee legal compliance, workplace-policy teams should implement this operational checklist:


  1. Record Every Objection: Formally document any written or verbal objection raised against an IC member’s impartiality upon receipt.
  2. Apply the "Real Likelihood" Test: Evaluate supporting evidence rather than relying on subjective perceptions, discomfort, or unsupported suspicions.
  3. Verify Statutory Eligibility: Periodically audit external member credentials to ensure independence from management and the parties involved.
  4. Recuse for Genuine Conflicts: Immediately replace a member if there is prior personal involvement in the complaint, direct reporting lines, or demonstrable personal bias.
  5. Issue Reasoned Orders: Pass a written, reasoned administrative decision explaining why an objection was accepted or rejected.
  6. Communicate Clearly: Deliver the reasoned response to the objector before proceeding with hearings, preserving natural justice.

Closing Takeaway

A fair PoSH process requires more than responding to allegations of bias—it requires a documented, reasoned assessment of whether those allegations are supported by material facts. Where there is no real likelihood of bias, dissatisfaction alone should not derail an inquiry; where there is a genuine conflict or statutory disqualification, replacement is necessary to protect the integrity of the process.

Strengthen Your PoSH Compliance Framework with POSHAW

Managing objections to committee composition, ensuring external member independence, and conducting fair inquiries require robust legal oversight. At POSHAW — Workplace Dignity, we help organizations build safe, compliant, and respectful workplaces through end-to-end PoSH legal support.

How We Can Assist Your Organization:


📞 Speak to Our Experts: +91 9773831359 | +91 9999415757

✉️ Email Us: Info@poshaw.in

🌐 Learn More: poshaw.in


References & Case Law:

#POSHAW #PoSHCompliance #InternalCommittee #WorkplaceDignity #PoSHAct #DelhiHighCourt #HRCompliance #WorkplaceSafety #SexualHarassmentPrevention