1. Metadata
Case Name: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014
Bench: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli
Appellant: Aureliano Fernandes
Respondents: State of Goa & Others
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2023
2. Introduction
This case reached the Supreme Court as an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Bombay, Goa Bench, which had declined to interfere with the termination of the appellant’s employment at Goa University following a finding of sexual harassment by the Internal Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The appellant contended that the inquiry conducted by the Internal Committee had been completed in “tearing hurry,” denying him a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, and that the principles of natural justice had not been observed.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the Supreme Court used the occasion to conduct a comprehensive audit of the state of implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 across India. Observing that the Act had been in force for a decade and that its enforcement remained deeply inadequate, the court issued extensive directions addressed to the Union of India, all State Governments, Union Territories, and various categories of employers aimed at ensuring effective, compliant, and proactive implementation of the Act.
3. Summary of Facts
Multiple female students of Goa University filed complaints against the appellant, Aureliano Fernandes, a faculty member of the university, alleging sexual harassment. The Internal Committee constituted by the university under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 initiated an inquiry. During the course of the inquiry proceedings, the appellant failed to appear on multiple occasions. The Internal Committee proceeded ex-parte against him on account of his repeated absence, found the allegations to constitute grave misconduct, and recommended termination of his employment and disqualification from future employment at the university.
The appellant challenged the proceedings before the High Court at Bombay, Goa Bench, raising contentions regarding the constitution of the Internal Committee, whose members were junior to him in his department, and the undue haste with which the inquiry had been concluded without giving him a fair opportunity to participate. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that ample opportunities had been granted, that the composition of the Internal Committee was not objectionable, and that the principles of natural justice had not been breached. The appellant approached the Supreme Court against this order.
4. Issues Before the Court
Issue 1: Whether the Internal Committee of Goa University conducted the inquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, specifically whether the appellant was given a reasonable and effective opportunity to defend himself.
Issue 2: Whether the state of implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 across India warranted comprehensive directions from the Supreme Court to remedy systemic failures.
5. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments of the Appellant:
The appellant submitted that the inquiry proceedings had been rushed to a conclusion without giving him a genuine and effective opportunity to participate in his defence. While acknowledging that he had missed several dates of hearing, the appellant contended that his non-appearance had been on medical grounds and that the Internal Committee had not given due consideration to this explanation. He argued that the hasty manner in which the inquiry had been concluded, and the failure to afford him a reasonable opportunity, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice and rendered the inquiry and the consequent termination order unsustainable.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The university and the State of Goa submitted that the Internal Committee had granted multiple opportunities to the appellant, all of which he had failed to utilise. The respondents maintained that the inquiry had been conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and in accordance with the university’s service rules. It was contended that the appellant had been afforded a fair hearing but had chosen not to engage with the process, and that the High Court had rightly declined to interfere.
6. Reasonings and Findings
The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant’s contention regarding the hasty conduct of the inquiry and set aside the High Court’s judgment, directing a fresh inquiry. The court observed that the Internal Committee had completed the proceedings in a “tearing hurry” and that despite the appellant’s absences, the manner in which the inquiry had been concluded did not satisfy the requirements of a fair process under the principles of natural justice. The appellant had not been given a reasonable and effective opportunity to place his defence, and this was a procedural infirmity that vitiated the entire inquiry.
Having disposed of the specific appeal, the court turned its attention to the broader picture of implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 across India. The court observed with concern that notwithstanding the Act having been in operation for approximately a decade, its enforcement remained deeply inadequate, with many employers having failed to constitute Internal Committees, Local Committees, or Internal Complaints Committees as required, and with awareness among employees and employers alike remaining limited.
The court issued comprehensive directions addressed to the Union of India, all State Governments, Union Territories, public sector undertakings, and other employers. These directions included: a time-bound exercise to verify constitution and composition of committees in all government departments and public bodies; mandatory publication of committee details, contact information, and complaint procedures on official websites; annual awareness programmes for employees; regular training of Internal Committee members; and reporting of compliance to the relevant authorities.
7. Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and of the university, and directed that a fresh inquiry be conducted by the Internal Committee in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The court also issued extensive directions for the effective nationwide implementation of the Act, placing obligations on the Union, States, Union Territories, and employers to ensure that the legislation’s protective mandate is fulfilled in both letter and spirit. The decision is a landmark affirmation that procedural fairness in workplace harassment inquiries and robust institutional implementation are inseparable aspects of the Act’s promise to working women.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is an Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013?
An Internal Committee is a body that every employer with ten or more employees is required to constitute under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It is responsible for receiving, inquiring into, and making recommendations on complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. Its constitution, composition, and procedure are prescribed by the Act.
Q2. What are the principles of natural justice, and why are they relevant to Internal Committee proceedings?
The principles of natural justice include the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua). In the context of Internal Committee proceedings, the right to a fair hearing requires that the accused be given adequate notice, a reasonable opportunity to present a defence, and the chance to know and respond to the evidence against them. A failure to provide these safeguards vitiates the inquiry and the consequent order.
Q3. Can an accused employee be proceeded against ex-parte by an Internal Committee?
Yes, an Internal Committee may proceed ex-parte if the accused repeatedly fails to appear without sufficient cause. However, even in ex-parte proceedings, the committee must ensure that adequate notice was given and that the accused had a genuine opportunity to participate. A finding made in “tearing hurry” without allowing even a minimum opportunity for defence is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.
Q4. What were the key directions issued by the Supreme Court for implementation of the Act?
The court directed all government departments, public bodies, and employers to conduct a time-bound verification of whether compliant committees had been constituted, to publish committee details on official websites, to conduct annual awareness programmes, to train committee members, and to report compliance. These directions were aimed at ensuring that the Act is not merely a paper enactment but is given practical effect.
Q5. What is the significance of the court’s observation that the Act had not been adequately implemented even after a decade?
The observation reflects the court’s recognition that legislation, however well-intentioned, fails in its purpose if it is not actively enforced. By issuing comprehensive implementation directions, the court signalled that it would not remain indifferent to systemic non-compliance. The decision places responsibility squarely on governments and employers to make workplace harassment protections a living reality rather than a formal obligation.
