Picture this: a woman decides to complain against her senior colleague at work. The Internal Committee (IC) investigates and concludes that the allegations are unsubstantiated. The police too file closure reports. For many, this would have been the end of the matter. Yet, the woman refuses to give up, convinced that her story deserves to be tested in a court of law.
This scenario played out in real life when Asif Hamid Khan, a senior officer of the Jammu and Kashmir Government, was accused of sexually harassing a colleague at the J&K Guest House in Delhi.
On 28 August 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court dismissed Khan’s plea to quash his trial under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
Khan argued that he had already been cleared by the IC in 2015 and that two closure reports filed by the Delhi Police confirmed the absence of evidence. However, the Court rejected this reasoning, holding that departmental proceedings and criminal trials operate in separate spheres and cannot be equated.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, better known as the PoSH Act, was enacted to create safer workplaces for women.
- It requires all organisations to set up IC.
- ICs have powers to conduct inquiries and recommend corrective measures.
- Employers are bound to implement IC recommendations within 60 days.
However, the Act is a workplace redressal mechanism and does not replace criminal accountability. Justice Krishna underlined this distinction: an IC’s findings cannot be used to discharge an accused from prosecution under criminal charges.
Key Takeaways
- PoSH ≠ Criminal Trial: The Court emphasised that the PoSH Act is not a substitute for criminal law. IC recommendations are limited to workplace action, whereas criminal offences concern the State. A favourable IC report cannot automatically lead to discharge in criminal proceedings.
- Different standards of proof: IC inquiries rely on the “preponderance of probability,” while criminal courts require proof “beyond reasonable doubt.” These distinct thresholds mean that an IC’s exoneration cannot dictate the outcome of a criminal case.
- The complainant’s voice matters: The Court reaffirmed that the credible testimony of a complainant can be sufficient for prosecution. Independent corroboration, while helpful, is not always necessary in cases of sexual harassment.
- Workplace culture challenges: Despite progressive legislation, sexual harassment continues to persist, particularly where power dynamics silence colleagues and deter testimony. The judgment reminds organisations to create safe, retaliation-free environments and conduct IC proceedings with fairness.
This judgment reinforces that internal redressal and criminal accountability are complementary, not interchangeable. The PoSH Act provides a vital workplace safeguard, but when allegations amount to criminal offences, they must be tested in a court of law. It is a reassurance that their voices can resonate well beyond internal corridors and reach the judicial system.
