Police had never questioned the CEO, and he had left the country.
When institutional processes meant to protect the vulnerable become instruments of delay or dismissal, courts must sometimes remind those processes of their own purpose. In Delhi this week, a judicial magistrate intervened in a sexual harassment case against the CEO of Hero Future Energies after police acknowledged they had never questioned him — even as he had left the country. The case illuminates a recurring tension in workplace justice: the gap between the existence of formal protections and their faithful execution, particularly when the accused holds power over the very systems meant to hold him accountable.
- Months after an FIR was filed against a sitting CEO for sexual harassment and criminal intimidation, police had conducted no investigation into his conduct — a silence the court could no longer ignore.
- The woman at the center of the case faced not only the original harm but a cascade of institutional failures: a biased internal inquiry, a guilty manager kept in his post, and retaliation that stripped her of office access and email even after a tribunal ordered her protection.
- A Delhi magistrate intervened directly, mandating that an Assistant Commissioner of Police supervise the probe, that named witnesses be examined, and that the CEO himself be interrogated — transforming a dormant file into an active judicial obligation.
- The company insists it followed all required procedures and accepted the internal committee's recommendations, but the court's order suggests those assurances have not satisfied the standard of accountability the law demands.
- With a review hearing set for May 11, the investigation now carries judicial scrutiny as its engine — the question is whether that scrutiny will be enough to close the distance between an order on paper and justice in practice.
A Delhi judicial magistrate intervened on April 17 to revive a sexual harassment investigation that had effectively gone nowhere. The case involves Srivatsan Iyer, CEO of Hero Future Energies, a Hero MotoCorp subsidiary, who stands accused of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation by a woman employee. Despite a formal FIR filed under India's Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the investigating officer admitted in court that Iyer had never been questioned — and had since left the country.
The complainant's ordeal began when she reported harassment by a senior manager, then by Iyer himself after she escalated her concerns to him directly. An internal committee found the manager guilty but recommended only a warning and sensitivity training. Iyer declined to accept the manager's resignation, allowing him to remain employed. The employee, viewing the internal process as compromised, filed a criminal complaint — only to watch that process stall as well.
Magistrate Neetika Kapoor responded by ordering that an Assistant Commissioner of Police take supervisory control of the investigation, that all witnesses named by the complainant be examined, and that Iyer be interrogated. The court also took note of ongoing retaliation: despite an industrial tribunal's interim order protecting the employee from adverse action, the company had blocked her email access and barred her from the office.
Hero Future Energies maintained that it had followed proper procedures and accepted the internal committee's findings, adding that it would cooperate with police. The next hearing is scheduled for May 11, when the magistrate will assess whether the investigation has meaningfully advanced — or whether the gap between judicial instruction and institutional action remains as wide as before.
A Delhi court stepped in this week to restart an investigation that had stalled almost entirely. On April 17, Judicial Magistrate Neetika Kapoor issued an order directing senior police oversight of a sexual harassment case against Srivatsan Iyer, the CEO of Hero Future Energies, a subsidiary of the Hero MotoCorp Group. The reason for the intervention was stark: despite an FIR filed months earlier, police had never questioned Iyer, and he had left the country.
The case began with a woman employee who reported sexual harassment by a senior manager at the company, then by Iyer himself. She also alleged criminal intimidation—pressure meant to silence her. In March 2026, she took her complaint to an internal committee established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act. That process, she later told the court, was compromised from the start. The inquiry found the accused manager guilty of misconduct but recommended only a warning and sensitivity training. More troubling to her: Iyer refused to accept the manager's resignation and allowed him to stay on the job. When she escalated her concerns to Iyer directly, she said, he harassed her as well.
Frustrated by what she saw as a rigged internal process, the employee filed a criminal complaint. An FIR was registered under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita covering sexual harassment and intimidation. But then nothing happened. The investigating officer, Inspector Ajay Kumar, admitted in court that he had conducted no investigation into Iyer's conduct. A co-accused manager, Mayur Maheshwari, had agreed to be questioned, but other witnesses remained unexamined. The CEO himself had never been called in for interrogation.
When the complainant's lawyer, Apoorva Pandey, brought the stalled investigation before the court, the magistrate took the matter seriously. She ordered that an Assistant Commissioner of Police oversee the probe going forward. She directed the investigating officer to examine all witnesses the complainant had named, and to interrogate Iyer specifically. The order demanded a report by a set deadline. The court also noted something else: even after an industrial tribunal had issued an interim order in March protecting the employee from adverse action, Hero Future Energies had blocked her email access and barred her from the office. That continued retaliation, the court seemed to signal, was part of the problem.
Hero Future Energies issued a statement saying it takes harassment complaints seriously and followed all required procedures. The company said the internal committee's recommendations were accepted and that it stands ready to cooperate with police. It also noted that since the matter is now in court, it would not comment further. The next hearing is set for May 11, when the magistrate will assess whether the police have actually begun the work they were ordered to do.
Citações Notáveis
The internal inquiry found the accused manager guilty of misconduct but recommended only a warning and sensitivity training, and the CEO refused to accept his resignation.— Complainant's allegations to the court
Hero Future Energies treats POSH complaints with utmost seriousness and has followed all procedures prescribed by the POSH Act.— Hero Future Energies statement
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the police not question the CEO in the first place, even after an FIR was filed?
The source doesn't explain the investigating officer's reasoning. He simply admitted in court that no investigation had been conducted. It's a gap that suggests either negligence or something more deliberate—the court clearly thought it warranted judicial intervention.
What made the internal inquiry process so flawed in the complainant's view?
She said it involved multiple committees and suppressed documents. The committee found the accused guilty but recommended almost nothing—a warning, some training. And the CEO shielded the accused by refusing his resignation. The whole thing felt designed to minimize rather than address the harm.
Did the company's statement acknowledge any of these failures?
No. They said they followed all procedures and accepted the committee's recommendations. They're essentially saying the internal process worked as intended. They're not engaging with the complainant's claim that it was biased or that the CEO retaliated against her.
What's the significance of the tribunal's interim order in March?
It explicitly told the company not to take adverse action against the employee while the appeal was pending. Then the company blocked her email and locked her out of the office anyway. That's not just a procedural violation—it's contempt of a court order, and it shows the company was willing to ignore judicial authority.
Why does it matter that the CEO left the country?
It complicates the investigation. He's beyond easy reach. The court had to specifically order his interrogation, which suggests without that order, police might never have pursued him. It also raises questions about whether he left to avoid accountability.