.svg){kind=small}
PoSH inquiries operate on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities — not proof beyond reasonable doubt — with courts according deference to IC findings supported by credible testimony, while safeguarding against conclusions unsupported by any evidence.
The PoSH Act mandates that Internal Committees conduct inquiries in accordance with applicable service rules or, where none exist, prescribed rules. ICs are vested with powers akin to a civil court under Section 11(3) — summoning witnesses, examining evidence, and requiring production of documents. However, the Act does not expressly codify any standard of proof, leaving this to be informed by the broader framework of disciplinary and service jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that in disciplinary proceedings, including those involving workplace sexual harassment, the applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Union of India v. Dilip Paul (2023 INSC 975), the Court reaffirmed this position in a sexual harassment case arising under the PoSH framework, holding that criminal and disciplinary proceedings have different purposes, approaches, and standards of proof. High Courts have followed suit: the Calcutta High Court in Anil Kumar Mridha v. Union of India held that while the departmental standard is preponderance of probability, this must be based on some evidence or material on record, and that mere labelling of conduct as sexual harassment without probative support is impermissible.
The seminal case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 established that courts in sexual harassment matters must examine broader probabilities rather than narrow technicalities, and that where the victim’s evidence inspires confidence, courts are obliged to rely on it — even without eyewitness corroboration. In X v. Union of India (2020 SCC OnLine Del 1618), the Delhi High Court underscored that primacy may be accorded to the intrinsic credibility of the complainant’s account, cautioning expressly against transposing criminal trial standards into PoSH inquiries.
In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that High Courts in judicial review may interfere only where IC findings are based on no evidence or are wholly perverse, and cannot act as appellate forums on appreciation of evidence. Once an IC has followed statutory procedure and reached a reasoned finding on a preponderance of probabilities, courts will rarely interfere merely because another view is possible on the evidence. This deference reflects the IC’s position as the primary fact-finder within the POSH framework.
PoSH inquiries apply a balance-of-probabilities standard assessed through the prism of broader probabilities and contextual sensitivity inherent in sexual harassment jurisprudence. The framework calibrates between protection of complainants and prevention of misuse: findings must rest on some evidentiary basis; credible single testimony can sustain conclusions without corroboration; and judicial intervention is available but strictly circumscribed to process failures and perversity.
