What did the Supreme Court decide in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa?

The Court found serious procedural lapses in the Internal Committee’s inquiry and reinforced that POSH inquiries must follow natural justice and the statute.

Did the Court strike down the Internal Committee because members were junior?

No. The composition challenge did not succeed. The real problem was the hurried procedure and lack of reasonable opportunity to the respondent.

What directions were issued for better POSH enforcement?

Governments and employers must ensure valid IC/LCs, publish details and procedures online, and conduct regular training and awareness programmes.

What is expected from employers after this ruling?

Set up compliant committees, train members, publicise complaint channels, and run workshops so inquiries are fair, timely, and legally sound.

Does medical absence allow an ex parte POSH inquiry?

Only if fair opportunity was first given. The Court said unreasonable haste and refusal of time can violate natural justice.

Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Others (2023)

POSH Act, 2013 Natural Justice Due Process

Supreme Court of India 2023 Two-judge bench Citation: 2023 (SC) Workplace Harassment ~7 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Publish Date: 24-Jun-2025 | > Location: India | Slug: aureliano-fernandes-v-state-of-goa-others-2023

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court reviewed a POSH inquiry held by Goa University’s Internal Committee. The inquiry moved too fast and did not give a fair chance to the teacher to defend himself. The Court said: follow natural justice, follow the POSH Act, and train committees well. It also issued directions for better compliance across India.

CASE_TITLE: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Others (2023) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: POSH Act 2013; Internal Committee; Natural Justice SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Due Process; Ex parte Inquiry; Supreme Court Directions AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi PUBLISH_DATE: 24-Jun-2025 LOCATION: India

Issues

Did the Internal Committee’s inquiry follow natural justice and the POSH Act, 2013?
Were the procedural safeguards (time, notice, hearing) properly given before going ex parte?

Rules

POSH Act, 2013 & Rules: Proper constitution of IC/LC; fair and confidential procedure; timelines; reasoned findings.
Natural Justice: Adequate notice, reasonable opportunity to be heard, unbiased decision-making.
Institutional Duty: Employers must display IC details, complaint process, and provide training and awareness.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for Aureliano Fernandes case under the POSH Act

Complaints: Female students accused a faculty member of sexual harassment at Goa University.

IC Inquiry: Internal Committee began proceedings. Due to medical absences, the teacher did not attend; inquiry proceeded ex parte.

Findings: IC held him guilty of grave misconduct; recommended termination and disqualification.

High Court: Writ petition failed; procedure and IC composition were upheld.

Supreme Court: Appeal filed; focus shifted to fairness and strict POSH compliance.

Arguments

Appellant

Inquiry was rushed; medical absence was genuine; more time was needed.
Proceeding ex parte without fair opportunity broke natural justice.
IC procedure did not match POSH requirements; decision is unreliable.

Respondent

IC followed the law and timelines; absences stalled the process.
Evidence supported guilt; strong action was necessary.
High Court already found no legal fault in the inquiry.

Judgment

The Supreme Court found serious procedural flaws. The inquiry moved in undue haste and did not give a reasonable chance to the teacher to put his case. The Court stressed that POSH committees must act with care, record reasons, and give fair opportunity before going ex parte. It then issued nationwide directions to improve POSH compliance and training.

Ratio

POSH inquiries must respect natural justice at each step.
Ex parte proceedings are valid only after giving realistic opportunity to be heard.
Institutions must ensure proper IC constitution, training, and published procedures.
Courts can step in when procedural fairness is compromised.

Why It Matters

This ruling protects dignity at work and also protects the fairness of the process. It tells every employer: set up lawful committees, train them well, and run inquiries with care and clarity.

Key Takeaways

Fair hearing first; ex parte only if unavoidable.
Train IC/LC members; publish details and complaint process.
Document reasons and follow timelines.
Natural justice is the backbone of POSH inquiries.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Hear, Care, Declare”

Hear: Give notice and genuine time.
Care: Follow POSH steps with sensitivity and training.
Declare: Record clear reasons and findings.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Whether the POSH inquiry met natural justice and statutory procedure.	POSH Act, 2013; principles of natural justice; institutional duties to ensure fair hearing.	Inquiry was hurried; insufficient opportunity given; procedure lacked care and clarity.	Violation found; strong directions issued to ensure fair, trained, and transparent POSH inquiries.

Glossary

POSH Act: The 2013 law to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces.
Internal Committee (IC): In-house body that receives and inquires into workplace harassment complaints.
Natural Justice: Fair hearing, unbiased decision, and reasoned order.