Mere Apprehension Of Bias Not Enough To Reconstitute PoSH Committee: Delhi High Court

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 29 October 2026

Case: Not stated in source
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Not stated in source
Citation: Not stated in source
Statutes: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Source: LiveLaw

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Delhi High Court held that a mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to warrant the reconstitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The court emphasized that concrete evidence of bias is required.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A mere apprehension of bias, without concrete evidence, is not a sufficient ground to compel the reconstitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) formed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Litigants seeking reconstitution of an ICC must present concrete evidence of bias, not just apprehension. Advocates should focus on demonstrating actual prejudice or conflict of interest within the committee.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Apprehension of bias alone is not enough to reconstitute a PoSH Committee.
2Concrete evidence of bias is required to challenge the composition of an ICC.
3The court will not intervene in ICC composition based on speculative claims.

The Legal Issue The Delhi High Court addressed the question of whether a mere apprehension of bias is sufficient to necessitate the reconstitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The petitioner sought the reconstitution of the ICC, alleging a potential for bias without providing specific evidence of actual prejudice.

Court's Reasoning The Delhi High Court ruled that a mere apprehension of bias, without any concrete evidence to substantiate it, is not a valid ground for directing the reconstitution of an ICC. The court emphasized that for such a direction to be issued, there must be tangible proof or specific instances demonstrating actual bias or a conflict of interest on the part of the committee members. The court declined to interfere with the existing composition of the ICC based solely on speculative claims of potential bias.

What Follows The petition seeking the reconstitution of the ICC was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. This means the existing ICC will continue its proceedings as constituted. Parties challenging the composition of an ICC must present specific, verifiable evidence of bias rather than relying on general apprehensions.