Can a Court Reassess an IC’s Findings?

In the recent case of Ashima Sanjeev Minocha v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr., the Gujarat High Court considered the scope of judicial review of an Internal Complaints Committee (“IC”) decision under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”).

The petitioner had challenged the IC’s final report rejecting her complaint, alleging, among other things, flaws in the constitution and functioning of the IC and improper appreciation of the evidence.

The Court declined to interfere, observing that a writ court should not substitute its own assessment for that of the IC merely because another view may be possible. Interference would be warranted where the decision suffers from patent unreasonableness, arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or illegality.

The Court found no apparent bias and noted that the IC had complied with the principles of natural justice by providing the parties an adequate opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence before it.

The Court also noted the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, while the petitioner was given liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

What does this mean for employers?

The judgment highlights several practical safeguards for employers and ICs:

1. Inform both parties of the appeal remedy: The parties should be informed in writing of their right to appeal under Section 18 and the applicable limitation period following issuance of the IC’s report.

2. Build an impartial IC: The IC should be constituted and operate in a manner that minimizes any potential conflict of interest or perception of bias, including avoiding situations where an IC member directly reports to the complainant or respondent.

3. Preserve the record: Evidence, submissions, correspondence, hearing records and other relevant documents should be carefully maintained to demonstrate that the process was fair and properly followed.

4. Follow the statutory route: Where an IC report is challenged, parties should ordinarily be directed to the statutory appellate mechanism. A writ petition may not be treated as an opportunity for a fresh factual assessment of the IC’s findings.

Key Takeaway

The decision reinforces that judicial review is not the same as an appeal on merits. A properly constituted IC, adherence to natural justice and a well-documented process remains critical in ensuring that its findings withstand judicial scrutiny.