This article is written by Ammara Mehvish Khalilullah Shaikh, Government Law College, Mumbai.

Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023): Sexual Harassment Inquiries and Expansion of POSH Act Protections

Honestly speaking, the whole idea around workplace sexual harassment inquiries in India has always felt kind of confusing, sometimes even scary for many women and also men, because the procedures are so formal and sometimes not followed properly and sometimes people don’t even know what rights they have or don’t have.

When I first read the judgment Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023), I felt like finally the Supreme Court said something clear and straight about how these inquiries should happen and why internal committees must do their job properly. The case is one of those judgments that feels very “alive” because you can literally imagine the people involved and the mistakes that happened and how the lack of proper inquiry honestly messed up the entire case.

The Supreme Court in this case didn’t just decide one matter… it gave a entire checklist and then a kind of reminder that POSH Act is not just a rulebook, but a protection shield, especially for people who feel unsafe or afraid to speak up. And surprisingly the Court also spoke of how universities and colleges kind of slack off in forming ICCs, which is very common.

So this article basically tries to go through what happened, what the Court said and why it matters so much today especially for students teachers, employees literally everyone.

Case Laws 

1. The Story Behind Aureliano Fernandes Case: What Actually Happened

Prof. Aureliano, a teacher at Goa University, was accused of sexual harassment by some girl students and the University took disciplinary action against him. But the problem was not exactly whether he was guilty or innocent but mainly how the inquiry happened. The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) didn’t follow the POSH Act rules properly. For example they didn’t give proper documents, didn’t give him chance to defend properly and the findings were basically done without proper reasoning or evidence evaluation.

The Supreme Court noticed that the ICC inquiry was totally flawed, like completely off-track from what POSH Act actually requires. The Court said the procedure violated natural justice principles because the accused didn’t get materials on time, cross-examination chance wasn’t properly given, and the report was not even structured clearly.

This matters because POSH inquiries are super sensitive – they must protect survivors and also not violate rights of the accused. The Court said that neither side can be treated casually or blindly.

2. What the Supreme Court Held 

The Supreme Court in 2023 basically said:

• ICCs must function like a quasi-judicial body, not a random committee writing some sentences in a report.
• Every university, college, workplace, private or govt, must set up proper ICCs, not temporary or “just-for-show” ones.
• The ICC inquiry report must be reasoned, detailed, logical and show that evidence was actually examined.
• The accused must get all documents, statements, and chance to defend – no surprise materials at the last minute.
• POSH Act’s purpose will fail if institutions treat inquiries casually.

The Court also reprimanded institutions that haven’t even constituted ICCs properly even though the Act came in 2013. Like ten years later institutions still messing up is honestly embarrassing, and the Court kind of said this in an indirect polite judicial way.

3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – The Mother Case

Before the POSH Act even existed, Vishaka was the first major case where the Supreme Court created sexual harassment guidelines because back then no law existed. This case is basically the backbone. The Court said sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 19 and 21.

In this judgment, the Court said that workplaces must have complaints committees, mechanisms, etc. After this case the POSH Act finally got born in 2013.

In Aureliano, the Court reminded that institutions have forgotten the spirit of Vishaka and that compliance cannot be superficial anymore.

4. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012)

This case is another huge reminder where NGOs went to Court saying institutions weren’t implementing Vishaka guidelines. The SC said compliance must be strict and real, not paperwork-only. In Aureliano, the Court kind of re-connected this point, emphasising again that committees must work professionally.

5. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999)

This case is about judicial sensitivity in sexual harassment matters. The Supreme Court said that even a physical touch is not required for behaviour to amount to sexual harassment; even unwelcome advances or suggestions can be enough.

In Aureliano, the Court indirectly reaffirmed that the inquiry must be sensitive, not rough, not careless, and not judgemental towards survivors.

6. Punjab and Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar (2020)

This case is about how inquiries must follow natural justice rules. The Court stressed giving the accused proper documents and fair hearing. In Aureliano, the Court applied the same logic because the accused professor did not get proper opportunity.

The Real-Life Impact: Why Procedural Mistakes Hurt Survivors & Accused Both

One thing that honestly struck me while reading the Aureliano judgment was how procedural mistakes, like not giving documents on time or not recording statements properly or writing a half-hearted ICC report… they don’t just cause technical problems, they cause emotional damage too. And nobody talks about this part enough.

For survivors, when ICC members don’t follow procedures seriously, it feels like their whole experience is being treated casually. Sometimes survivors gather so much courage, sometimes months or years after an incident, to finally say something but then the committee just treats it like a side-task, and this creates a lot of frustration and hurt. It’s like the system is telling them “we don’t care enough”, even though the POSH Act was made exactly to give them a safe space.

But on the other side, when proper inquiry isn’t done, the accused person also suffers so much. If they’re not given documents or chance to defend then they start feeling like they’re being judged without even being heard. And that’s also unfair. Because POSH is not meant to be one-sided or rushed. If the inquiry is wrongful the accused keeps carrying a stigma even before any proof is established and this ruins careers reputations mental peace etc.

The Supreme Court in Aureliano kind of highlighted that these “small mistakes” by ICCs—like wrong notice dates, no cross-examination, badly-written reports—these things can completely destroy the fairness that justice needs. Honestly BOTH sides lose when the procedure collapses. And since ICC members are often professors or staff who are not legally trained, they sometimes don’t understand how serious these errors are.

This judgment is like a reminder that following procedure is not just paperwork—it’s emotional safety, fairness, and dignity for everyone involved. And that’s why the Court basically said “do your job properly or don’t do it at all”.

Conclusion

To be honest, reading this judgment felt like the Supreme Court was tired of repeating the same thing again and again. Institutions still not following POSH rules, ICCs still untrained, reports still badly written, survivors still uncomfortable. This judgment is like the Court shouting without shouting. It tells universities and workplaces: “Take POSH Act seriously, otherwise justice will keep failing quietly.”

For survivors this judgment means inquiries must be safe and sensitive. For accused persons it ensures fair trial and proper hearing. For ICCs it means serious responsibility. And for society it means that sexual harassment laws are not symbolic – they are functional only when implemented with care and respect.

FAQs

1. What was the main issue in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023)?

The main issue was that the ICC inquiry was done wrongly.. without proper documents, without proper evaluation. So the Supreme Court set aside the disciplinary action.

2. Did the Supreme Court say the accused was innocent?

No. The Court didn’t decide innocence or guilt. It only said the procedure was illegal and unfair, so the inquiry must be redone properly.

3. What did the Court say about ICC functioning?

It must function like a quasi-judicial body with reasoning, evidence evaluation, transparency, and full compliance with POSH Act rules.

4. Why is this case important for colleges and universities?

Because many universities still don’t form ICCs correctly. The Court literally warned institutions to comply strictly or face consequences.

5. Does this judgment help both survivors and accused persons?

Yes absolutely. It ensures sensitivity + fairness. No side should be treated casually.