An Internal Committee that reaches the right conclusion by the wrong process produces nothing of value. The finding gets set aside, the respondent is restored, the complainant has to go through it again, and the employer has spent a year defending a procedural failure rather than a factual one.
That is what happened in Aureliano Fernandes v State of Goa, and it is the most instructive POSH judgment available to an employer for exactly that reason.
| Citation | Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 |
| Court and date | Supreme Court, 12 May 2023 |
| Outcome | Inquiry outcome set aside |
| Reason | Undue haste; natural justice not satisfied |
| Composition challenge | Not upheld |
Position stated as at July 2026.
What happened
Goa University initiated an inquiry against a faculty member following multiple complaints of sexual harassment from female students. The Internal Committee proceeded with the inquiry. He was repeatedly absent, citing medical reasons. The committee proceeded ex parte, found him guilty of grave misconduct and recommended termination. The disciplinary authority terminated him; the appellate authority and the High Court did not disturb the outcome.
The Supreme Court set it aside. Its findings, in substance:
- The inquiry had been conducted in undue haste.
- Despite the medical absences, insufficient time had been given to present a defence.
- The inquiry violated the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Court analysed the position against Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution, and traced the line from Vishaka through Medha Kotwal Lele to the statute, before turning to the wider state of POSH implementation.
The finding employers most often miss
He also challenged the composition of the committee, on the ground that its members were junior to him. That challenge was not upheld.
This matters for two reasons. It tells you that seniority of IC members relative to the respondent is not, by itself, a defect — a point that gets raised by senior respondents constantly and is usually a delaying tactic. And it isolates the actual ratio: the procedural failure took precedence. The case was decided on opportunity to be heard, not on who sat on the committee.
What the Court did about implementation generally
Having observed serious lapses in enforcement a decade after the Act, the Court issued directions aimed at strengthening implementation — requiring time-bound audits by the Union, States and Union Territories to verify that ministries, departments, public sector bodies, institutions and other authorities had constituted Internal Committees and Local Committees in conformity with the Act, and that details be published.
The directions in the judgment focus principally on public institutions and government bodies. But the POSH Act applies equally to private employers, and the momentum has carried across: related proceedings including Initiatives for Inclusion Foundation v Union of India, (2024) 1 SCC 779, have driven surveys of Internal Committee constitution in private organisations, District Officer lists of establishments within the Act, and collection of annual reports at district level. The direction of travel is toward verified, monitored compliance rather than declared compliance.
What to change in your process
| Practice | Why, after Aureliano Fernandes |
|---|---|
| Log every notice, extension and adjournment with dates | The record of opportunities offered is what the Court examined. It cannot be reconstructed afterwards. |
| Treat the 90-day clock as a target, not a justification | The statute sets an outer limit for completion. It does not authorise compressing the respondent's opportunity to meet it. |
| Document how you assessed a claimed medical reason | Rejecting it may be entirely reasonable. Rejecting it without a recorded basis is what failed here. |
| Give the respondent the material relied on | An opportunity to be heard without disclosure of what is alleged and on what evidence is not an opportunity. |
| Record the reasoning, not just the conclusion | A reasoned finding survives review; a bare conclusion invites it. |
| Train IC members before they sit, not after | Orientation is a statutory employer duty, and an untrained committee makes precisely these errors. |
| Do not let the composition point delay you | Members being junior to the respondent was not upheld as a defect. Constitute the committee correctly under Section 7 and proceed. |
The point that is easy to lose
It is tempting to read this case as a warning about being unfair to respondents, and to conclude that the safe course is to go slowly and cautiously in the respondent's favour. That is the wrong lesson.
A procedurally sound inquiry protects the complainant more than anyone. A finding that is set aside a year later means she has to give evidence again, in a process that has already failed her once, against a respondent who has been restored in the interim. The discipline the judgment demands is not a concession to respondents; it is what makes an adverse finding stick.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in Aureliano Fernandes v State of Goa?
Decided on 12 May 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014, the Court set aside the outcome of an Internal Committee inquiry because it had been conducted in undue haste and, despite the appellant's medical absences, had not given him sufficient time to present his defence — a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Can an Internal Committee proceed ex parte if the respondent does not attend?
It can, but non-attendance does not lower the standard. The record must show what opportunities were offered, over what period, with what notice, and on what basis any explanation for absence was rejected. An ex parte finding without that record is vulnerable.
Can a respondent object that IC members are junior to him?
In Aureliano Fernandes that challenge was not upheld. Relative seniority is not, by itself, a defect. What matters is that the committee is constituted in accordance with Section 7 and that the inquiry is fair.
Does the 90-day limit justify a faster inquiry?
No. Section 11(4) sets an outer limit for completing the inquiry; it does not authorise curtailing the opportunity to be heard. Aureliano Fernandes is authority that haste can invalidate the outcome.
What happens if a POSH inquiry is procedurally defective?
The finding and any action taken on it can be set aside on challenge, restoring the respondent's position and requiring the process to begin again. The employer is left defending its procedure rather than the substance of the complaint.
Did the judgment impose obligations on private employers?
The directions in the judgment focus principally on government and public institutions, but the POSH Act applies equally to private employers. Related proceedings including Initiatives for Inclusion Foundation v Union of India (2024) 1 SCC 779 have driven surveys of Internal Committee constitution in private organisations and district-level collection of annual reports.
For the underlying obligations — Internal Committee constitution, composition, timelines, the annual report and penalties — see POSH Act compliance: what employers must actually do.