Can you ask for a different PoSH committee if you think it will be unfair?

Photo: Soulkid Photography / Pexels. Illustrative photograph, not Kalindi College or a meeting connected with the case.

Two faculty members at Kalindi College complained about harassment by colleagues. The first inquiry was set aside. A replacement committee was appointed, but the complainants still questioned whether it could hear them fairly. They took those concerns to the Delhi High Court.[1]

This article is for HR teams, employers and Internal Committee (IC) members responding to objections about committee independence. Employees on either side of a complaint and legal advisers should read it too. College administrators should pay particular attention: the court applied the rules for higher education institutions, not a committee template for every workplace.

The case explains why an objection needs to be examined member by member. It also keeps two questions separate: whether a committee can fairly hear a complaint, and whether the harassment happened. The court decided the first question, not the second.[1]

The complaint that had to start again

The two faculty members submitted a joint complaint in July 2025. They alleged harassment, intimidation and sexually coloured remarks by colleagues, including in a staff WhatsApp group and at a Staff Association meeting.[1]

One person on the committee handling their complaint was himself named in the events. The complainants said he had deleted a relevant WhatsApp message. They objected to his involvement. He later asked to step aside, but the College refused. He remained involved in the inquiry and signed its report.[1]

That committee concluded that the allegations were not sexual in nature.[1]

The complainants appealed. The Vice-Chancellor set the inquiry aside because of the member’s involvement and a separate problem with the external member’s appointment. A fresh inquiry was ordered, excluding anyone connected with, involved in or interested in the complaint’s subject matter.[1]

The College appointed a new committee in July 2026. None of the earlier committee’s members remained.[1]

Why the employees questioned the replacement committee

The complainants challenged the new appointments and the Vice-Chancellor’s order. They also wanted a committee at University level to hear their complaint.[1]

Their concerns included the Principal’s role in choosing the new members. She had previously refused to let the earlier member step aside. One new member had attended the staff meeting mentioned in the complaint. Another was the Principal’s Senior Personal Assistant.[1]

The court examined these objections separately.

The Principal’s earlier decisions

The court noted that the Principal was not accused in the underlying harassment complaint. The objections concerned her administrative decisions. There was no allegation that she had a relationship with the people complained against or an interest in protecting them.[1]

On those facts, dissatisfaction with her earlier decisions did not establish a real likelihood that the new committee would be biased. The court also distinguished her role in appointing members from the committee’s independent role in deciding the complaint.[1]

The member who attended the meeting

The court found that the petition did not attribute a relevant remark or WhatsApp role to this member. It did not identify a relevant relationship with the parties or say that she had been named as a witness. Attendance at the meeting, on its own, was not enough to remove her.[1]

That finding should not be stretched into a rule that anyone present during an incident can investigate it. As a practical safeguard, examine what the person actually saw, said or did, including whether they may need to give evidence.

The member who worked for the Principal

Being the Principal’s Senior Personal Assistant was not enough, by itself, to disqualify the member. The UGC rules required non-teaching employees on the committee, and those employees ordinarily worked under the Principal. No other circumstance suggesting an interest in the outcome had been put forward. The court also found that this post was not among the senior administrative positions excluded from membership.[1]

The Principal was not the person accused of harassment. The faculty members complained against had no administrative control over the new committee members. Those facts are important limits on the finding.[1]

What the court decided

On 27 October 2026, the High Court dismissed the challenge. It found that the material did not establish a real likelihood of bias in the replacement committee.[1]

The earlier inquiry remained set aside. Dismissing the challenge to the new committee did not restore the earlier report or mean that the harassment allegations were false.[1]

The court also accepted that the external-member defect had been corrected. An advocate had signed the earlier report as a legal expert, rather than as a properly nominated external member. The replacement committee included a University law professor who was not a College employee, and no specific connection with the parties or other ground of disqualification had been raised against her.[1]

The request for a University-level committee was rejected. Under the framework the court applied, the College was the parties’ workplace and the fresh inquiry belonged before its committee. The Vice-Chancellor could not take over the committee’s task of investigating the complaint.[1]

There was also an objection to the absence of a personal hearing before the Vice-Chancellor. The court rejected it because the written appeal and representations had been considered, the main relief sought had been granted, and the complainants had not shown resulting prejudice. That finding concerned this appeal; it is not permission to deny a fair hearing during an inquiry.[1]

The court directed the new committee to proceed and try to complete the inquiry within ninety days of receiving a copy of the judgment. The starting point was receipt of the judgment, not its pronouncement date. The inquiry still had to follow the applicable law and a fair process.[1]

What should workplaces do with this?

The following are practical recommendations, rather than additional instructions issued by the court.

If you are an employee raising a concern, explain the connection you are worried about. Was the member involved in the incident? Did they advise one of the people involved? Have they already expressed a view about the complaint? Share the messages, dates or other details available to you. You do not have to guess what someone privately thinks; explain what happened and why it raises a concern.

If you are on the IC, disclose your own involvement early. If you have information that may be needed as evidence, flag it before taking part in assessing that evidence. Do not leave the person making the complaint to discover the connection later.

If you work in HR or lead the organisation, avoid a stock response such as “the committee has already been appointed.” Check the concern about each member and record the reasons for the response. Equally, do not assume that every objection requires replacing the whole committee.

Keep that review separate from judging the complaint itself. An employee questioning a member’s independence has not, by doing so, proved or disproved the harassment allegation.

Check appointment records as well as relationships. A lawyer’s attendance or signature does not automatically fill the external-member role. Ungender’s external member services include documented, term-based appointments.[4] The institution should still examine the person’s suitability for the particular complaint.

For members who need practice handling these questions, Ungender’s IC training covers complaint intake, framing issues and inquiry planning.[3] A useful exercise is to compare a colleague who merely attended a meeting with someone who witnessed the disputed exchange or advised a party about it. The organisation chart alone will not tell you the difference.

Employers outside higher education should not copy the college’s committee structure without checking the rules that apply to them. Where a complaint concerns a powerful organisational leader, the different questions of jurisdiction and institutional influence need their own assessment. Ungender’s guide to protecting IC independence in senior-leader complaints discusses that separate situation.[5]

Start the conflict check before someone objects

Ask each member whether there is anything about their involvement with the events or people that needs examination before they hear the complaint. Record the answer and revisit it if new information comes up. A general declaration of independence should not replace a check against the particular complaint.

Both parts of this case matter: the first committee’s problems required a fresh inquiry; the concerns raised about the second committee did not establish a sufficient reason to stop it. The complaint itself still needed to be heard.[1]

If you manage HR or administration at a college or university, write to contact@ungender.in about partnering with Ungender on PoSH governance.

Penned by Pallavi Pareek, Founder of Ungender and Conduct.

Case and source note

Dr. XXXXXXXX and Anr. v. University of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 13218/2026, Delhi High Court, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, decided 27 October 2026. The full official judgment has been read. Its paragraph 2 withholds the complainants’ identities under section 16; this article preserves that anonymity.[1]

The facts and earlier process appear in paragraphs 3–10; the court’s findings in paragraphs 18–37; and the ninety-day direction in paragraph 38. The Vice-Chancellor’s earlier sixty-day direction, reproduced in paragraph 7, is distinct from the court’s later direction.[1]

Research refreshed on 2 November 2026. Targeted public searches did not identify a later appeal or stay, but they do not establish that none exists. Court-registry clearance remains outstanding. This is general information, not advice on a particular complaint.

Sources

[1] https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/SKS27102026CW132182026_190019.pdf — Delhi High Court: Dr. XXXXXXXX and Anr. v. University of Delhi & Ors., 27 October 2026, official judgment

[3] https://www.ungender.in/ic-training-for-posh-compliance — Ungender IC training

[4] https://www.ungender.in/posh-external-member-services — Ungender external member services

[5] https://www.ungender.in/posh-complaint-senior-leader-ic-independence — Ungender: When the Complaint Is Against a Senior Leader