Sexual harassment cases are intricate legal matters, demanding meticulous scrutiny of evidence, testimony, and procedural fairness. In recent years, discussions surrounding the admissibility and relevance of character testimony have become increasingly pertinent. While character references might hold significance in other legal or professional contexts, their relevance diminishes considerably in cases of sexual harassment, where the focus must remain squarely on behaviour and evidence.
Focus on behaviour
First and foremost, sexual harassment cases revolve around the behaviour of the respondent, not their overall reputation or personality. The Internal Committee (IC), as mandated under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (PoSH) Act, 2013, is required to examine whether the respondent’s conduct meets the legal definition of harassment. This evaluation is based on actions, intent, frequency, and the impact of the behaviour on the complainant.
Character testimony, while it may highlight positive aspects of a respondent’s personality or past behaviour, often fails to address the specific allegations in question. Someone may be perceived as respectful or courteous in general, but that does not negate the possibility of isolated or context-specific misconduct. In the pursuit of justice, it is therefore imperative to prioritise evidence that directly relates to the alleged incident rather than broad generalisations about one’s nature.
Relevance to allegations
Moreover, character testimony may lack relevance to the specific allegations at hand. In the adjudication process, the IC prioritises material evidence, such as written communication, eyewitness accounts, and timelines, that can substantiate or refute the claim. While a respondent’s good character may inform broader perceptions, it does not necessarily shed light on the veracity of the allegations.
For example, a person may have an excellent professional record and yet have engaged in inappropriate behaviour toward a particular individual. The IC must therefore assess each complaint in isolation, focusing on facts and context rather than the respondent’s overall professional standing. Giving undue weight to character testimony could inadvertently invalidate the complainant’s experience or discourage others from coming forward.
Potential of bias
Another critical consideration is the potential for bias inherent in character testimony. Human relationships are complex, and individuals often form subjective opinions influenced by personal interactions, loyalty, or social hierarchy. This subjectivity becomes especially pronounced in sexual harassment cases, where emotions, power dynamics, and organisational politics can cloud judgment.
Colleagues or subordinates offering testimony might do so out of allegiance, fear, or favour. Similarly, friends or peers might unintentionally minimise the behaviour due to familiarity with the respondent. As a result, character evidence must be approached with caution, recognising that it may reflect personal beliefs rather than objective truth. In maintaining procedural fairness, IC members must be trained to separate perception from fact and focus instead on corroborated evidence.
Corroboration and substantiation
Furthermore, Internal Committees responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints prioritise corroboration and substantiation over personal impressions. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, or digital communication carry far greater probative value than broad statements about character. While character references may help provide a sense of context, such as behavioural patterns or workplace culture, they often lack the evidentiary strength necessary to establish or dismiss harassment.
For instance, a witness describing specific incidents or behaviours that align with the complainant’s account provides direct relevance. In contrast, a colleague claiming that “the respondent is generally respectful” offers little to no evidentiary value. The IC’s role is not to judge morality but to evaluate whether conduct violated workplace dignity and safety standards.
Additionally, over-reliance on character testimony can create procedural loopholes, allowing respondents to frame the investigation as a contest of reputation rather than accountability. By maintaining focus on factual evidence, the IC ensures that outcomes are impartial, defensible, and consistent with the principles of natural justice.
The way forward
Ultimately, the effectiveness of any sexual harassment inquiry depends on the rigour and objectivity of its process. While organisations may continue to receive character references from colleagues or superiors, such inputs should only serve as supplementary context — never as decisive proof of innocence or guilt. Committees must remain vigilant in ensuring that every piece of evidence directly ties to the allegations under review.
In addition, IC members should receive regular training on evidence evaluation, bias recognition, and trauma-informed approaches to interviewing both complainants and respondents. This not only reinforces procedural fairness but also strengthens organisational credibility in handling sensitive cases.