The Internal Committee (IC) is one of the most important parts of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Its job is to investigate complaints of Sexual Harassment and make recommendations.

The reason for having this committee is to ensure that victims of Sexual Harassment do not have to rely on their employer to find justice.

The law outlines that there must be an Internal Committee with the specified composition (including a senior female employee as Presiding Officer), employee members and an external member.

But an important question remains what if-

The Internal Committee does not act fairly?

They can be influenced by senior management? What if a Committee member has a personal interest in the matter? Can HR influence how the investigation is carried out? Who investigates a complaint made about the Internal Committee? All of these are real questions that are of importance in the workplace.

1. The Internal Committee isn’t part of the HR department.

One of the biggest misconceptions in organisations is that the Internal Committee is controlled by the HR department.

In truth, it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that the Internal Committee are constituted and have the facilities needed. The investigation must be independent and be carried out in accordance with the PoSH Act and Rules. Whilst the HR department can assist with administrative tasks (such as employee records, notices etc.), they cannot dictate the findings.

The Internal Committee must come to an independent conclusion based on the evidence presented. If the Internal Committee becomes a tool used by management then the investigation loses validity.

2. What does Section 4 of the PoSH Act requires?

Section 4 of the PoSH Act outlines how the Internal Committee should be constituted. It should consist of:

A Presiding Officer. This member must be a senior female employee

At least two members from amongst employees. Ideally these members will have a passion for women’s issues, social work or knowledge of law

One external member. This person should be from an NGO/association focused on women’s issues or someone with knowledge of Sexual Harassment.

At least half of the committee must be female.

The Presiding Officer and members can be appointed for no longer than 3 years.

This is not just an administrative step but ensures the committee have suitable experience, representation and independence. It is not the employer’s responsibility to appoint members of the Internal Committee as an administrative task.

The external member should offer an independent view and help avoid the investigation becoming an internal management issue.

3. The problem of Management influence

Imagine a complaint is made by a female employee against a senior member of staff who has a lot of influence in the organisation. The Internal Committee consists of members of management and many members report directly to the person the complaint is being made against. Throughout the investigation, HR are contacting the committee members regularly and raising concerns regarding possible outcomes. Alternatively, management may put pressure on the Internal Committee to conclude the investigation quickly as it is proving detrimental to the organisation.

The question is whether the Internal Committee remain independent without controlling its findings?

Whilst it is not an issue for the employer to want the investigation concluded quickly, this can become a problem if the HR department are interfering with the decision making. The employer should support the committee without controlling its findings. This is why it is important to have an external member, to offer an independent view to curb the institutional pressure.

4. Conflicts of Interest – Can members investigate something they have a personal interest in?

Whilst the Internal Committee member works for the same organisation as the parties involved, this does not automatically disqualify them. However, if they have:

• A personal connection to the complainant/respondent.

• Are a key witness to the incident?

• Have been involved in the events forming the subject matter of the complaint.

• Have a personal interest in the outcome.

• Have already formed an opinion on the allegations before the inquiry.

• Have a direct connection that could cause bias.

In such circumstances then we must consider conflicts of interest carefully.

As they are an interested party, they cannot fairly and objectively review the evidence. The principle of no one should be the judge of their own cause is a key part of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the committee must investigate any potential conflicts of interest. If there is a real conflict of interest then the member should not get involved with any decision makingprocess.

5. What have the Courts said about having an independent Internal Committee?

It has been highlighted multiple times that the Internal Committee must be constituted and run in accordance with the law.

In the case of Rashi v. Union of India W.P. (C) 3396/2019 decided on the 4th December 2020, the Delhi High Court considered key issues regarding the constitution and operation of an Internal Committee.

The case involved allegations of conflict of interest and improper constitution.

The Court stressed that an investigation into Sexual Harassment must be independent, impartial and free from undue pressure from senior officials.

This is an important decision as it acknowledges that for an investigation to be credible, the body investigating must also be fair.

Another case, Punjab & Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar (2020) 19 SCC 46, also highlights the importance of having an appropriately constituted Internal Committee and independent external member.

Having an eligible and independent external member is not optional. It is a safeguard that has been put in place by the Statute. These decisions show that the composition of the Internal Committee is directly connected to whether the investigation will be fair.

6. Should every allegation of bias result in reconstitution of the Internal Committee?

Not necessarily. Any allegations of bias must be considered based on the facts of the situation. Just because you disagree with decisions made by the committee, doesn’t mean you have the right to ask for a new committee to be formed. InOctober 2026, the Delhi High Court considered this issue In the case of Dr. XXXXXX and Another v. University of Delhi and Others W.P. (C) 13218/2026 decided on the 27th October 2026, the Court found that simply suspecting bias is not sufficient. There must be substantial and convincing evidence to prove that there is a genuine possibility of bias. The Court also considered the issues raised regarding the involvement of the Principal in constituting the committee and certain people being part of the committee.The Court did not agree that administrative subordination or decisions could be seen as evidence of bias. However, it recognised the importance of ensuring that the investigation is properly conducted. Given the delay in proceedings, the Court directed the newly constituted committee to do everything possible to complete the investigation within 90 days.

This judgement provides an important balance as it recognises the need for the Internal Committee to remain independent whilst also acknowledging that allegations of bias must be backed up by evidence. We shouldn’t be constantly changing committees due to the right to a fair investigation.

7. Can the employer form a different committee to investigate the same allegations?

This is another key issue.

Sometimes employers will form an informal/ad-hoc investigation committee rather than referring the complaint to the Statutory Internal Committee.

This can cause confusion regarding who is responsible for carrying out the investigation under the PoSH Act.

In April 2026, the Delhi High Court considered this issue. In this case, an ad-hoc investigation committee had been formed prior to the statutory Internal Committee carrying out the investigation. The Court ruled that an employer cannot form a parallel investigation committee to investigate allegations that should be investigated under the statutory provisions of the PoSH Act.

This is an important decision as it shows that an employer cannot form an informal committee. There is a clear difference between administrative investigations, disciplinary proceedings and investigations under the PoSH Act. These should not be confused.

8. Who holds the Internal Committee accountable?

This is arguably the most important question to consider. The PoSH Act contains a number of safeguards.

Section 4 outlines how the Internal Committee should be constituted.

Section 11 and PoSH Rules outline how the investigation should be carried out.

Section 19 outlines the responsibilities of the employer. This includes ensuring a safe working environment, supporting the Internal Committee with the investigation, providing information and acting on recommendations.

Section 26 outlines the penalties for the employer not following certain provisions of the Act.

However, there is no specific Appellate authority created to oversee the day-to-day running of all Internal Committees. This does not mean that the Internal Committee cannot be held accountable. They can be held accountable via the statutory appeal process, service rules and judicial review.

A Court can investigate whether the committee were properly constituted, principle of natural justice was followed and whether there are any legal/ procedural issues with the decision. The employer cannot argue that the matter was dealt with by the Internal Committee. They have responsibilities under the Statute.

9. External Member – A meaningful safeguard

The external member should offer an independent and knowledgeable view. However, appointing an external member should not be a tick-box exercise.

If the external member relies on the employer for regular work, pay and employment, they may face practical pressure. Whilst this does not necessarily mean they are biased, it raises a key issue regarding how organisations can ensure external members remain independent. The external member should feel comfortable to express their views, highlight any procedural issues and make an independent decision without fear of losing their position. The external member should not just be appointed to meet the statutory requirements of the committee. They should be appointed to increase confidence in the investigation and strengthen the inquiry.

10. What if the Internal Committee makes procedural errors?

Sometimes the Internal Committee will make mistakes. However, this does not mean that every procedural error will invalidate an investigation. Serious procedural errors can impact the validity of the findings.

1. Failure to provide the respondent with the allegations and informationmaterial.

2. Failure to allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.

3. Participation of member with a real conflict of interest.

4. Failure to consider relevant evidence.

5. Evidence not being properly put to the parties.

6. Pre-determined findings.

7. Failure to follow the investigation procedure.

8. Unreasonable delays without justification.

9. Confidentiality breaches.

In such circumstances the affected party may wish to challenge the investigation/outcome in the appropriate forum. This will depend on the law and service arrangement. The correct remedy will be decided based on the type of defect, stage of proceedings and prejudice caused.

The purpose of judicial review is not to replace every investigation carried out by an Internal Committee. It is there to ensure statutory powers are being used lawfully and fairly.

11. Holding the Internal Committee accountable without deterring complaints

When considering accountability of the Internal Committee, it is important to consider why the PoSH Act was introduced in the first place.

Often women face pressure, isolation and negative career consequences when reporting Sexual Harassment. Accountability should not be another deterrent. However, the Internal Committee should not be completely free from scrutiny as they are a statutory body. Independence should be protected but decisions should be able to be reviewed in accordance with the law. The complainant has a right to a fair investigation. The respondent has a right to a fair hearing. The employer must respect the independence of the committee. The committee must be accountable to ensure they are following the law.\

An independent Internal Committee is key to justice in the workplace.

The PoSH Act would be ineffective if organisations were only required to constitute an Internal Committee. The real question is how the Internal Committee operate is the key. Are they independent from management pressure? Are they properly trained? Does the external member have a meaningful role? Are conflicts of interest identified? Are the parties being given a fair and equal opportunity? Are the conclusions based on evidence? These questions should be included in every serious conversation regarding PoSH compliance. The Internal Committee should not be a tool used by management or an unchallengeable authority in the workplace. They are a statutory body and have a sensitive responsibility. The credibility of the committee relies on them being independent, fair, transparent and accountable. A committee that was set up to protect dignity in the workplace should follow the same standards of fairness and dignity that everyone else is required to follow by law.

 (The author, a well-recognised lawyer and campaigner for female rights, has authored “Breaking the Silence: A Handbook on the PoSH Act”. She also holds a POCSO Train-the-Certificate.)