Raising the Curtain on PoSH Inquiries | Part 3

One of the most common criticisms of a PoSH inquiry is that the Internal Committee was biased. Sometimes that concern is justified. Sometimes it is not.  Today, we examine the question, “When should an Internal Committee member actually be removed from an inquiry, and when is recusal unnecessary?”

Internal Committees are not external judges parachuted into the workplace. They are often employees who understand the organisation, its culture, reporting structures, and working relationships. This raises a practical question that appears frequently in PoSH inquiries: when does familiarity become bias?

Perfect Neutrality Is An Impossible Standard

An IC member may know one or both parties professionally. They may have handled previous complaints. They may have observed workplace dynamics before the complaint was filed. They may even hold strong views about workplace culture, reporting mechanisms, or appropriate workplace behaviour. None of these realities automatically make someone biased. If just knowing any of the parties involved in the inquiry meant you had to recuse yourself, many Internal Committees would struggle to function at all.

When Does An IC Member Actually Need To Step Aside?

The law requires IC members to step aside when those experiences where there is possibility (perceived or actual) for a conflict of interest. For example:

1. A complaint is filed against a department head. If the respondent loses their position, the IC member may be promoted to that role.

1. If the respondent is found guilty, the IC member may receive a financial benefit, such as a bonus, incentive, or increase in compensation.

In such circumstances, the question to be asked is whether a reasonable person, in that position, would act in a fair and neutral manner?

Why Perceptions Matter In PoSH Inquiries

Internal Committees operate in a context where employees are often deciding whether they feel safe reporting workplace concerns. A complainant may hesitate to participate if they believe an IC member is closely aligned with the complainant/respondent/witness(es). A participant may lose confidence if they believe conclusions have already been formed. Witnesses also may be reluctant to cooperate if they perceive the inquiry as predetermined. Even where one cannot prove actual bias, these perceptions can affect trust in the process and confidence in the outcome. This is why courts repeatedly emphasise that “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”

Situations Where an IC Member Should Be Recused

These are some examples where an IC member should be recused:

1. The IC member has a personal relationship with any of the participants. A close friendship, family relationship, romantic relationship, or significant personal conflict with any party, be it the complainant, respondent, or a key witness may create concerns about impartiality.
2. Where the outcome affects the IC member personally. The outcome of the inquiry will influence the IC member’s reporting structure, their promotion, they will get some financial benefit out of it, or any other personal benefit.
3. The IC member was a witness to the disputed event. An individual cannot effectively perform the role of both witness and decision-maker in the same inquiry.
4. The IC member has already expressed strong views on the allegations.

Comments suggesting that the complaint is obviously true, obviously false, or that a particular outcome should follow may indicate that the IC member has formed a bias towards a specific conclusion (i.e. guilty or not guilty) before considering all the evidence.

What Should Not Automatically Trigger Recusal

Recusal is generally not required merely because:

• The IC member knows one or both parties professionally.
• The IC member works in the same department.
• The IC member has interacted with the parties in the ordinary course of work.
• The IC member has previously handled workplace complaints.
• The IC member has a good level of general knowledge of workplace dynamics or organisational culture.

A Useful Principle to Keep in Mind:

Recusal should not be based on mere familiarity, guesswork, or dissatisfaction with the inquiry. The focus should be on whether there is a real or reasonably perceived conflict of interest that could affect confidence in the fairness of the process.

This strikes a balance between two competing concerns: protecting the integrity of the inquiry while recognising that Internal Committees are workplace bodies, not external courts.

How SHLC Can Help

At SHLC, we help organizations comply with the PoSH Act by providing tailored policies, training, and unbiased investigations. We also empower employees with legal guidance and support, ensuring a safe and respectful workplace for all.

To learn more contact us via email at contact@shlc.in or on +91-9625392040

Disclaimer

The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the law is constantly evolving. This blog post does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship and should not be used as a substitute for seeking professional legal advice. For specific PoSH- related questions and concerns, please consult with a qualified lawyer or PoSH expert.