Sexual harassment case: HC upholds DU professor’s compulsory retirement

New Delhi, July 27

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Delhi University professor, upholding the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that found him guilty of sexual harassment, and affirmed the university’s decision to compulsorily retire him from service.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the matter, observed that the executive authority had given a fair hearing to the petitioner and that the absence of a speaking order did not amount to a breach significant enough to establish prejudice.

“This is a case where students made complaints against their own teacher,” the court on July 17 remarked, highlighting that such allegations carry added weight in the Indian context, “as we are taught to hold teachers in a very high regard.”

The petition was filed by Prof Amit Kumar, against whom four complaints were received in 2018, three from students and one from an alumnus. These complaints pertained to inappropriate messages sent via Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, involving sexual innuendoes and unwelcome advances. The matter was forwarded to the ICC for inquiry.

While the professor denied the allegations, claiming his messages were misunderstood and accusing the students and the Department of Political Science of conspiring against him, the ICC concluded its proceedings by July 2018.

The committee had completed recording of evidence by May that year. The delay, thereafter, the court noted, was solely attributable to the professor’s conduct. The ICC unanimously found all four charges of sexual harassment to be proved and recommended compulsory retirement as punishment.

Subsequently, the university’s governing body issued a show cause notice to the professor and provided him an opportunity for oral submissions. In October 2018, the governing body accepted the ICC’s recommendation and compulsorily retired him with immediate effect. The decision was approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

Before the High Court, the professor challenged not only the findings of the ICC but also its constitution, as well as the procedure adopted during the inquiry. He also alleged that principles of natural justice had been violated by the ICC, the Vice-Chancellor and the governing body.

Rejecting all contentions, Justice Prasad observed: “Teachers shape the career of young aspiring students for a better future. The act of sexual harassment done by these very teachers, who are considered as our guides and mentors, against young female students who have just attained majority, has a deleterious effect on the psyche of such students. It is often seen that female students are reluctant to report of such misconduct and many students even drop out of colleges as they face ridicule and humiliation.”

The court noted it was not inclined to reproduce the contents of WhatsApp and Facebook messages submitted against the professor, as they were “so profane.”

Further, Justice Prasad clarified that the constitution of the ICC and its formation of an enquiry committee were in compliance with Rule 7(7) of the POSH Rules, and that no procedural irregularities had occurred.

He further ruled that the procedure adopted by the ICC was “neither unreasonable nor arbitrary,” but rather in line with procedures developed through “guidelines, regulations and laws laid down through judicial pronouncements.”

Addressing the issue of fair hearing, the court said the professor was granted more than sufficient opportunities to present his case before the governing body and that there was no error or violation of the principle of audi alteram partem.

“Thus, it is clear that even for the purposes for approval, the respondent no.1 university, was in receipt of all relevant material, including a representation from the petitioner, and there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the same. Since all issues raised have been answered against the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed,” the court concluded.

The court also stressed that while procedural rigour must not be ignored, it should not be weaponised to dilute the core intent of the POSH Act.