Imagine that you have been accused of workplace sexual harassment. The stakes are high as your reputation, career and personal life are on the line. You think that you can easily be represented by a lawyer, to help you navigate through the inquiry. But before being represented by a legal practitioner in an internal committee inquiry, it is important to understand whether you can be represented by any legal practitioner in a case of sexual harassment at workplace under the laws and rules prevalent in India.?

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi addressed this crucial question, and its decision reaffirmed the boundaries already set by the law. Here’s a breakdown of what the law states, what the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held, and how SHLC can guide organizations and individuals through such challenges.

Background of the Case:

The petitioner, in Johney Reberio v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 (Del) 998, faced an inquiry by the Internal Committee (“IC”)  under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”) for allegations of sexual harassment levied against him by an “aggrieved woman”. He sought permission to be represented by an advocate, citing the severity of potential consequences, including termination of his employment as per the employment letter, workplace policy and zero-tolerance of the employer against sexual harassment cases arising in the workplace.

The IC denied his request by stating that Rule 7(6) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (“PoSH Rules”) prohibits legal practitioners from representing the parties during IC  proceedings.

The petitioner challenged this before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, arguing that the denial by the IC to be represented by a legal practitioner violated his rights and limited his ability to defend himself in the inquiry.

What the Law Says

• The PoSH Act provides for the constitution of the IC and it functions as a fact-finding body to look into the complaints arising out of workplace sexual harassment.
• Rule 7(6) of the PoSH Rules categorically states that the parties to the PoSH proceedings shall not be allowed to be represented by any legal practitioner at any stage of the inquiry before the IC. This rule aims to ensure the process remains impartial and fair for all parties involved and the focus of the process remains on the resolution of the complaint and not on legal technicalities.

Court Ruling

• The Court rejected the petitioner’s claims, stating that the legal representation, directly or indirectly, contravenes Rule 7(6) of the PoSH Rules.
• Allowing law graduates or individuals with legal training to represent parties would undermine the Rule’s intent.
• The standards of proof and procedural safeguards applicable in the courts do not apply to IC inquiries.
• The IC serves as a domestic inquiry forum, and introducing legal representation could place the complainants on a disadvantageous footing as they would remain unrepresented in the entire proceedings and thereby hampering their ability to get justice.

How SHLC Can Help

At SHLC, we understand that navigating workplace harassment laws can be complex, especially with evolving legal interpretations like the recent Delhi High Court ruling. Our team of legal experts stay abreast of such updates and rulings to provide your organization with accurate, practical, and compliant solutions.

To learn more, please visit our website at https://shlc.in/ or contact us via email at contact@shlc.in.

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.