The term ‘respondent’ is defined under Section 2(m) of the Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as “a person against whom the aggrieved woman has made a complaint.”
In an Internal Committee (IC) investigation, the respondent is a critical party to the inquiry and must be treated with fairness and impartiality. The Act and established legal precedents ensure that the respondent’s rights are protected under the principles of natural justice — specifically, audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).
Key Rights of the Respondent
- Right to a Copy of the Complaint:
When summoned for a hearing, the respondent must receive a copy of the written complaint. This ensures that the respondent is fully aware of the allegations and can prepare an appropriate defence.
- Right to a Fair Hearing:
The respondent must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, produce evidence, and bring witnesses in their defence. The IC must ensure that this opportunity is genuine and not just procedural.
- Right to Cross-Examination
The respondent has the right to question the complainant and witnesses to test the veracity of their statements. This may be done directly or through written questionnaires, depending on the situation.
- Right to Access Witness Statements:
As per natural justice, the respondent has the right to know the evidence and statements brought forward against them. Without access to this information, they cannot effectively defend themselves.
- Right to Confidentiality:
The respondent’s identity must be kept confidential throughout the inquiry process, just as the complainant’s identity is protected. The IC must maintain discretion to ensure the dignity of all parties involved.
Case Study: Mr Manjeet Singh vs Indraprastha (2015)
This case highlighted the importance of adhering to due process during an IC investigation.
An internal inquiry was conducted under the PoSH Act, where three witnesses deposed on what was reported to them by the complainant, Ms. Reena Mohanty. However, none of the witnesses could directly corroborate the allegation of sexual harassment. Despite this, the IC concluded that the respondent was guilty.
The High Court observed the following key lapses:
- The complainant’s version of events was not corroborated by any witness.
- The respondent was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
- The IC’s findings were based on unsupported inferences rather than evidence.
The inquiry was carried out in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The court therefore ruled that the IC’s conclusions could not be sustained and set aside the findings. It reiterated that adherence to natural justice forms the foundation of any fair investigation.
Balancing Rights and Protection
While the respondent has the right to access witness statements, the IC must also protect witnesses from potential intimidation or retaliation. In such cases, the IC can share the content of the testimony without revealing the identity of the witness.
This balance was reinforced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi University & Anr. v. Bidyug Chakraborty & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 23060/2009), where the Court stated:
“As this appears to be a case of sexual harassment, the identity of the witnesses need not be revealed to the respondent or his counsel. For this purpose, the respondent would be entitled to submit a questionnaire which will be put to the witnesses for their answers in writing.”
Accordingly, the IC may arrange for a written cross-examination, allowing the respondent to submit questions while maintaining the confidentiality of the witnesses.
Takeaways for the Internal Committee
When handling a PoSH investigation, the IC must ensure that:
- The respondent is treated with fairness and respect at every stage.
- There is no bias or presumption of guilt before the inquiry concludes.
- All evidence and witness statements are examined objectively.
- Confidentiality is strictly maintained for all parties.
The process reflects the principles of natural justice in both spirit and procedure.
A well-conducted inquiry protects not only the complainant’s dignity but also the respondent’s right to due process. This balance is central to ensuring that PoSH investigations remain credible, lawful, and just.
Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc