From 'Not Established' to Trial: 7 Key Lessons for ICs from the Delhi High Court's Asif Hamid Khan Ruling

The journey of a sexual harassment complaint through our legal system can be complex, often moving between internal and external forums. The Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling in Asif Hamid Khan vs. State on August 28, 2025, highlights the stark difference in outcomes between an internal inquiry and a criminal trial, offering critical, practical lessons for every Internal Committee (IC) member.

Here are seven key learnings, grounded in the specific facts of this case, to guide more robust and legally sound POSH investigations.

1. Understand the Non-Binding Nature of IC Reports on Criminal Proceedings

In the Asif Hamid Khan case, the Internal Committee investigated the complaint and concluded the allegations were "not established." However, the courts made it unequivocally clear that an IC’s findings are not binding on criminal proceedings. The High Court affirmed that departmental inquiries and criminal trials operate in "distinctly different spheres" with differing objectives and standards of proof. While an IC aims to maintain discipline and efficiency within the workplace, criminal prosecution addresses violations of duty to society and seeks to punish offenders. Therefore, even if an IC finds allegations "not established", a criminal court can still independently assess the evidence and decide to take cognisance and summon the accused.

2. Acknowledge and Address Power Dynamics

The case involved allegations by a Manager against an Additional Resident Commissioner—a clear professional hierarchy. The High Court didn't just acknowledge this; it framed the issue as a "struggle of a Woman wronged in her place of Work" against an "influential person." For ICs, this means power dynamics are not just background information. They are a crucial factor in evaluating evidence, understanding potential delays in reporting, and assessing the credibility of witnesses who may fear retaliation. ICs should ensure a safe environment for complainants and witnesses to depose freely, protecting them from potential retaliation or pressure.

3. Look Beyond the Obvious for Corroboration

The police filed two closure reports, citing a lack of corroborating evidence beyond the complainant's statement. This is a common hurdle in harassment cases. However, the Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient corroboration in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of colleagues and the complainant's husband. They hadn't witnessed the harassment, but they testified to seeing her emotional distress and trauma immediately after her interactions with the petitioner. This clarifies that: corroboration isn't limited to eyewitnesses. It can be found in the testimony of those who witnessed the aftermath—the victim's emotional state, contemporaneous complaints to friends or family, and other circumstantial evidence.

4. Be Cautious with Claims of "Motivated Complaints" or Past Cordiality

A frequent defence strategy is to discredit the complainant by assigning an ulterior motive. Here, the IC suggested the complaint was "triggered because of the fear of alleged transfer," and the petitioner himself argued that their prior "cordial relations" and "praiseworthy messages" from the complainant negated harassment. However, the courts found sufficient material to proceed with summoning. ICCs should be cautious when considering claims that a complaint is merely "motivated" or that past cordiality negates harassment, ensuring that such claims are thoroughly substantiated and do not serve as an easy way to dismiss genuine allegations.

5. Prioritise the Victim's Perspective

The High Court stressed that words and actions must be judged from the "victim’s perspective," not based on outdated or "stereotyped notions of what is acceptable." While the defence might frame comments as "jocular" or "innocuous," the court focused on their impact. Remarks like "What if someone falls in love with you?" or "but if I hug you and kiss you," when unwelcome, are not trivial. They constitute a violation of dignity. ICs must shift their lens from the accused's intent to the impact on the complainant.

6. Conduct a Thorough and Independent Assessment of Evidence

The entire judicial progression of this case—from the Magistrate to the High Court—was defined by a refusal to rubber-stamp earlier findings. The Magistrate rejected two police closure reports. The Sessions Judge upheld the Magistrate's independent reasoning. The High Court validated this entire approach. The takeaway for an IC is clear: you are an independent, quasi-judicial body. Your duty is to apply your own mind to the facts, not merely echo the findings of a manager, an HR representative, or even an external agency.

7. Specificity Matters: Know What Harassment Looks Like

The court identified specific acts and remarks that squarely fall under the definition of sexual harassment as per Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC. These provide clear, real-world examples for ICs:

• Sexually coloured remarks:

  
  

  • "What do you have in your mind when you get ready in the morning?"

  • "What if someone falls in love with you?"

  • "...but if I hug you and kiss you"

  • Commenting that the complainant "looks different everyday and she is pretty looking."

  • Asking "why you are breathing pensively."

    
    

• Unwelcome physical and non-verbal conduct:

  
  

  • Forcibly catching hold of a hand.

  • Gazing at the neck.

  • Calling the complainant unnecessarily at odd hours.

    
    

By grounding your understanding in such clear examples, your committee can more confidently identify and address inappropriate workplace conduct.

In essence, ICs should approach investigations with an open mind, a deep understanding of legal principles, a focus on the complainant's experience, and a commitment to independent and thorough fact-finding, rather than being swayed by external factors or superficial appearances. IC must meticulously investigate every aspect of a complaint, understanding that each detail contributes to the overall truth, irrespective of external pressures or initial impressions.