The Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark ruling clarifying that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — commonly known as the PoSH Act — constitutes a self-contained legal framework, and that universities or colleges cannot constitute parallel fact-finding committees outside the statutory mechanism prescribed under the law. The judgment was pronounced on April 26, 2025, by a single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court.

Background: The Ramanujan College Case

The ruling arose from a petition filed by Prof. Rasal Singh, Principal of Ramanujan College, a constituent college of Delhi University. Prof. Singh challenged both his suspension order and the formation of an ad hoc fact-finding committee constituted by Delhi University's Deputy Registrar (Colleges) following complaints of sexual harassment levelled against him by faculty members.

The petitioner argued that both the suspension and the parallel committee were legally untenable under the existing statutory framework. The court agreed — in part — setting aside the suspension order while upholding the employer's inherent authority to suspend in appropriate circumstances.

Court's Ruling on Suspension Powers

The Delhi High Court set aside the specific suspension order issued against Prof. Rasal Singh, holding that the language used in the order was "stigmatic" and therefore legally unsustainable. The court found that describing the allegations as involving "serious misconduct and harassment" — before any inquiry had been completed — unfairly prejudiced the petitioner.

Justice Kaurav observed: "A colleague, or prospective employer, before whose eyes pass the words 'serious misconduct and harassment', shall cause only an unfavourable and prejudicial impression."

However, the court was careful to clarify that the power of suspension itself is not extinguished. "Despite the PoSH Act not providing for the interim measure of suspension, an employer in exercise of its inherent rights can suspend a person who is the subject-matter of an inquiry under the PoSH Act," the court stated. The Governing Body of Ramanujan College was granted liberty to issue a fresh suspension order in legally compliant, non-stigmatic terms.

Parallel Committees Outside PoSH Framework Declared Impermissible

The more significant aspect of the ruling pertains to the court's categorical rejection of the ad hoc fact-finding committee set up by Delhi University to determine whether complaints should be forwarded to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Justice Kaurav held that such a pre-filter mechanism has no statutory basis under the PoSH Act.

"The creation of a fact-finding committee in order to determine whether a given complaint is to be sent to the ICC/Local Committee is de hors the provisions of the PoSH Act, and impermissible in law," the judge declared.

The court further observed: "The constitution of such an ad hoc committee would in fact be in express derogation of the object and purpose of the PoSH Act, and also frustrate the intention of the legislature." The ruling reinforces that all complaints of sexual harassment must be routed exclusively through the ICC or Local Committee as mandated by the statute.

Why This Ruling Matters: Procedural Safeguards at Stake

The Delhi High Court underscored that extra-statutory inquiries — conducted outside the PoSH framework — risk compromising critical procedural safeguards including confidentiality, natural justice, and the time-bound redressal mechanism enshrined in the law. Parallel committees can expose complainants to unnecessary scrutiny and delay justice.

This ruling has wide implications for Indian universities, colleges, and other institutions that may have informally constituted pre-inquiry panels as gatekeeping mechanisms before referring complaints to the ICC. Such practices are now explicitly barred by judicial precedent.

This comes amid growing concerns about institutional compliance with the PoSH Act across India's higher education sector. Multiple reports and government audits have previously flagged that a significant number of colleges and universities either lack functional ICCs or have constituted them improperly, leaving complainants without adequate redress.

Broader Implications for PoSH Compliance in India

The judgment reinforces a line of judicial thinking that treats the PoSH Act as a complete code — meaning institutions cannot supplement, replace, or bypass its mechanisms through internal administrative arrangements. Legal experts note that this ruling could prompt a review of internal policies across hundreds of educational institutions affiliated with central and state universities.

Notably, the Supreme Court of India has previously emphasized the importance of strict PoSH compliance, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) has issued guidelines mandating functional ICCs in all higher education institutions. Today's ruling from the Delhi High Court adds judicial weight to those administrative directives.

Going forward, institutions that have relied on ad hoc committees or informal pre-inquiry panels as a first filter for sexual harassment complaints may face legal challenges to their processes. The ruling is expected to prompt universities across Delhi and potentially other jurisdictions to revisit and restructure their internal complaint-handling mechanisms to ensure full statutory compliance.