NEW DELHI, JULY 31 2025 — The Delhi High Court has upheld the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), against Dr. Amit Kumar, a faculty member at Delhi University, who was accused of sexual harassment by four women.
The High Court, in its judgment in Dr Amit Kumar v. University of Delhi, refused to interfere with the ICC’s recommendation of compulsory retirement, stating that the inquiry and procedure followed were in line with the law.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS AND ICC FINDINGS
The complaint was filed by three students and one alumnus, who alleged that Dr. Kumar had sent them “objectionable messages riddled with sexual innuendo” via Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp.
Following the complaints, Delhi University’s ICC conducted an inquiry and found a prima facie case of sexual harassment, ultimately recommending compulsory retirement. The University acted upon this recommendation by issuing a formal letter of compulsory retirement.
DR. KUMAR’S CHALLENGE AND THE HIGH COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
Dr. Kumar challenged the decision, questioning the constitution, procedure, and findings of the ICC, and also contended that the POSH Act did not apply since the alleged messages were sent via social media, which he argued does not qualify as a “workplace.”
However, Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed these arguments, highlighting the larger legislative intent of the POSH Act.
“It is often seen that female students are reluctant to report of such misconduct and many students even drop out of colleges as they face ridicule and humiliation. The purpose of the POSH Act inter alia is to provide and assure female students of a safe and secure environment where they can study freely.”
The Court upheld the validity of the ICC’s constitution and the delay condonation, noting that the conduct in question was not isolated.
“There would have been some substance in the arguments of the Petitioner, had it been a case of a single incident which was reported beyond the period of limitation. However, in the present case, it is clear that these incidents did not stop even after the confrontation of the Petitioner by the students of Respondent No. 2 College and therefore, given the objective of the Act, these incidents cannot be seen in isolation.”
OBSCENE MESSAGES AND COURT’S DISCRETION
The Court reviewed the messages and transcripts of phone conversations submitted as evidence but refrained from reproducing them:
“It is being clarified that this Court has perused the content of these messages and the transcript of the tele-conversation which were submitted by the complainants as evidence. Given the obscene and profane nature of these messages, the same are not being reproduced,” the Court stated.
NO APPEAL FILED UNDER POSH ACT
The Court further noted that Dr. Kumar had not availed of the statutory appeal mechanism available under the POSH Act:
“It is clear from the facts of the present petition, that the Petitioner is not ignorant of provisions of the POSH Act, UGC Regulations and the legal remedies available to him. This is especially evident from the fact that the Petitioner has filed two writ petitions before this Court and an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, this Court finds it difficult to digest that the Petitioner was a novice in the matter of his legal rights and remedies.”
The Court also ruled that the failure of the Executive Authority to pass a speaking order did not cause prejudice, as Kumar was given a fair hearing by the ICC.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
For the Petitioner (Dr. Amit Kumar):
Senior Advocate Puneet Jain with Advocates Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Mann Arora, Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Neeraj Kumar, Vishwendra Verma, and Shivali.
For Delhi University:
Advocate Seema Dolo.
