An employee had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a senior colleague. The Internal Committee (IC) conducted the inquiry and reached out to the respondent, who through the initiation of the case chose not to participate in the proceedings. After giving the respondent multiple opportunities to present their side, the IC eventually made an ex-parte decision, finding the respondent guilty of sexual harassment.
That was the case of Ruchika Singh Chhabra vs. M/s Air France India and Another (2018).
The court upheld the IC’s decision, stating that –
“The IC had followed due process by giving the respondent ample opportunities to participate in the inquiry. The court emphasised that the IC acted within its authority under the PoSH Act and that the ex-parte decision was justified given the respondent’s non-cooperation.”
The principles by which the IC is legally expected to administer a case, talk about giving both parties an equal opportunity to present their side of the case. This is an important aspect of how PoSH cases are addressed. Then, why would the court uphold the decision of the IC to come to a verdict without the Respondent making their representation?
What is an ex-parte decision?
The process of giving a decision without hearing the other party is an exception to the principle and is known as an ex-parte decision. It is a ruling made by the IC when one party fails to appear or respond to the notice of inquiry. This might happen due to non-cooperation or avoidance by the respondent. The IC, in such cases, proceeds with the investigation based on the available evidence and the complainant’s testimony.
While ex-parte decisions are legally permissible, they require careful handling to ensure fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice. These decisions must be made with caution ensuring that the respondent has been given every reasonable opportunity to participate.
What does the PoSH Law say?
According to Rule 7(5) of the PoSH Rules 2014
The Complaints Committee shall have the right to terminate the inquiry proceedings or to give an ex-parte decision on the complaint, if the complainant or respondent fails, without sufficient cause, to present herself or himself for three consecutive hearings convened by the Chairperson or Presiding Officer, as the case may be:
Provided that such termination or ex-parte order may not be passed without giving a notice in writing, fifteen days in advance, to the party concerned.
By adhering to the following guidelines, ICs can ensure that their ex-parte decisions are robust, legally sound, and fair to all parties involved:
- Document all communication with the respondent, and make sure that the respondent has been reached out to with appropriate notice. The respondent should be made aware of the fact that their non-responsiveness can lead to an ex-parte decision.
- It’s also important to consider if non-attendance is intentional or due to valid reasons like a health care or personal issue.
- Even in ex-parte decisions, evidence must be carefully examined, and conclusions must be fair. The decision made cannot be based on the reasoning of the respondent’s non-attendance but facts of the case.
- The IC’s role is to deliver a fair and unbiased decision, regardless of the respondent’s cooperation.