‘Justice must be seen to be done’: Tripura High Court orders fresh sexual harassment probe against man over ‘bias’ concerns

“This important principle, which flows from the maxim ‘Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done, has also been violated by the respondent Nos. 1-5 (state, government research body, officer and others). This also vitiates their decision,” the May 7 order read.

Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Biswajit Palit observed that the principle of “real likelihood of bias” is firmly recognised in Indian law.

The bench was hearing the appeal filed by a woman working with a government research body, challenging a December 2023 single-judge order upholding the inquiry report of the government research body that rejected her sexual harassment allegations.

The Tripura High Court set aside the inquiry report of the government research body and ordered a fresh inquiry by a committee consisting of officers senior to the accused.

‘Witnesses may not have deposed honestly’

• The Tripura High Court pointed out that an inquiry conducted by a junior officer or a committee of juniors subordinate to the accused officer cannot command the confidence which it deserves, while allowing the appeal filed by the woman.
• The court further emphasised that it was “sad” that the accused was not transferred during the inquiry by the institute complaints committee so that witnesses could depose without fear, though such a step could have been taken.
• The Tripura High Court also noticed that the circumstances of the case lent credence to the woman’s allegation that the accused held a dominant position in the organisation, and that witnesses working under him might not have deposed honestly out of fear.
• The court further added that if that had been done, the witnesses would have been able to depose honestly and freely.

Harassment, complaints, litigation

The woman was working in the government research body, which she joined in 2015. The accused allegedly assumed duties in 2018, and the woman filed a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,2013, against him, alleging certain inappropriate conduct allegedly amounting to sexual harassment while she was working in her office and also in the field.

It was placed on record that there was no internal complaints committee at Agartala at that time. So, the matter was referred to the internal complaints committee of the government research body. The administrative officer of the institute complaints committee then issued a letter in December 2018, asking her to appear before the said committee in January 2019, as an inquiry would be held at the Tripura Centre on the basis of the said complaint.

The said committee, in its April 2019 report, found lapses on the part of both the woman and the accused and concluded that while the woman was argumentative and arrogant, the accused was a short-tempered person. It concluded that both were good at their work and both needed to change their behaviour. However, the report did not return any specific findings on the sexual harassment allegations.

Challenging the said report, the woman filed an appeal in July 2019, alleging that the enquiry held was not free and fair.

The woman also pointed out that the accused was the head of the office as well as the reporting officer of the annual performance appraisal report for several employees, and in his presence, if his subordinates conduct any enquiry, they may not speak the truth out of fear of harm to their careers.

After her appeal was rejected by the government research body in July, 2021, she filed a petition before the single judge challenging both the inquiry report and the appellate order. However, the single judge dismissed the petition by an order of December 2023.

The December 2023 order concluded that the competent committee had given its observations after duly considering the witness led by the woman, and as such, no fresh intervention is required in the case.

Challenging the same, this appeal was filed by the woman in the Tripura High Court.