1. The Legal Foundation: Conflict of Interest in the IC
- Principles of Natural Justice: Nemo judex in causa sua — no one should judge a matter where they have a vested interest.
- POSH Act, 2013: The Internal Committee (IC) functions with powers akin to a civil court (Section 11). It must remain impartial.
- Types of Bias:
- Personal Bias: Close friend, relative, or adversary of either party.
- Pecuniary Bias: Financial interest or reporting relationship to the accused.
- Subject Matter Bias: Prejudgment or strong opinion expressed before evidence is heard.
2. The “Right to Object”: How to Remove a Member
- Step 1: Raise a Formal Objection
Submit a written application to the Presiding Officer or Employer/HR. Courts accept “reasonable apprehension” of bias as sufficient. - Step 2: Invoke Section 4(5) of the POSH Act
IC members can be removed if they “abuse their position.” Refusal to recuse despite conflict of interest qualifies. - Step 3: External Member’s Role
Every IC must include one external NGO/association member (Section 4(2)(c)) to ensure fairness.
3. 2026 Perspective: Labour Codes & Judicial Strictness
- Industrial Relations Code, 2020: Requires disciplinary proceedings to be “fair and proper.”
- Judicial Oversight: High Courts under Article 226 can quash biased IC reports.
- Supreme Court Precedent: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) — sham inquiries lacking independence can be struck down.
- Consequences: Courts may order reconstitution of ICs, fresh inquiries, or penalties on employers.
Legal References Appendix
| Law / Case | Section / Rule | Principle Established | Application to Blog |
| POSH Act, 2013 | Section 4(5) | IC members can be removed for bias or abuse of position. | Employees can request replacement of biased members. |
| POSH Act, 2013 | Section 4(2)(c) | IC must include one external NGO member. | Provides independent oversight in inquiries. |
| POSH Act, 2013 | Section 11 | IC has powers of a civil court. | IC must follow natural justice principles. |
| Industrial Relations Code, 2020 | Disciplinary provisions | Proceedings must be fair and proper. | Biased IC reports can be challenged. |
| Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023, SC) | Judicial precedent | Sham inquiries can be quashed. | Courts can nullify biased IC reports. |
| Delhi HC – Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. Air France (2018) | HC ruling | IC reconstituted due to bias and lack of independence. | Demonstrates judicial power to order new IC. |
| Bombay HC – Global Health Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) | HC ruling | IC report set aside; fresh inquiry ordered. | Confirms courts intervene when IC is compromised. |
FREE – Quick Compliance Checklist (Employee Guide)
- Identify Bias Early: Watch for personal, pecuniary, or subject matter bias.
- File Written Objection: Submit to Presiding Officer or Employer/HR with reasons.
- Invoke Section 4(5): Request removal of biased members for “abuse of position.”
- Leverage External Member: Seek support from the NGO/association representative.
- Escalate to Court: Approach High Court under Article 226 if inquiry remains compromised.
- Preserve Evidence: Keep records of objections, communications, and IC proceedings.
Bottom Line
- POSH Act empowers employees to challenge biased IC members.
- Natural justice principles apply: impartiality is mandatory.
- Courts actively intervene — Delhi HC and Bombay HC have ordered IC reconstitution.
- Raise objections early to protect credibility and avoid dismissal of claims.
Disclaimer:
This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. POSH Act proceedings are sensitive; please consult a certified POSH trainer or a legal professional for guidance on your specific case.