Introduction:
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition brought by a Delhi University professor challenging the Internal Complaints Committee’s (ICC) determination of guilt with respect to multiple allegations of sexual harassment by students and an alumnus, as well as the consequent order of compulsory retirement.[1] Justice Subramonium Prasad found that the Executive Authority had afforded the professor a fair hearing, and held that the absence of a detailed or reasoned order did not result in any prejudice so as to warrant interference.
Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Bharati College (affiliated to University of Delhi), challenged the disciplinary action of compulsory retirement imposed after an inquiry into multiple allegations of sexual harassment by students and an alumnus. The complaints related primarily to inappropriate WhatsApp and Facebook messages, and a telephonic conversation leading to a public student agitation and viral confrontation video. The matter was processed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) and the UGC (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Regulations, 2015 (“UGC Regulations”).
Issues Addressed
The Court dealt with the following principal issues:
- Compliance of ICC Constitution with Statutory Requirements: Whether Bharati College’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was validly constituted as per the POSH Act and UGC Regulations, given objections on student members and the appointment of the external member.
- Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice: Whether the inquiry process—especially concerning the right to a fair hearing and cross-examination—was consonant with principles of natural justice, and whether any procedural lapses caused prejudice to the petitioner.
- Limitation Period and Delay in Complaints: Whether the ICC correctly condoned the delay in filing the complaints given the statutory limitation of three months (extendable by three months) under Section 9(1) of the POSH Act, and the unique circumstances faced by the complainants.
- Ambit of ‘Sexual Harassment’ and ‘Workplace’: Whether the acts complained of (occurring via social media and telecommunication) fell within the legal definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace.
- Legality of Disciplinary Action and Appellate Remedies: Whether the ICC’s recommendations and their adoption by the Governing Body and Vice Chancellor were vitiated by procedural or substantive irregularity—particularly in light of available statutory appeals.
Court’s Findings
- Constitution of ICC: The Court found no illegality in constituting the ICC, noting reasonable exceptions given the absence of postgraduate or research students, and that the appointment of an approved external member fulfilled regulatory requirements. Alleged procedural irregularities were found to be either waived by participation or immaterial in absence of proven prejudice.
- Inquiry and Natural Justice: The Court concluded that the ICC adopted procedures suitable for sensitive cases, such as written cross-examination to protect complainant confidentiality. It rejected arguments that the fair hearing requirement was breached and found that the defendant’s own conduct contributed to delays. Minor procedural deviations that did not result in prejudice were held insufficient to invalidate proceedings.
- Limitation and Delay: Delay in filing complaints was justified by reference to psychological trauma, fear of reprisal, and socio-economic vulnerabilities. The viral confrontation video was treated as a continuing act of harassment, warranting condonation of delay as per the statutory schema and social context.
- Scope of “Workplace”: The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, holding that the educational “workplace” under POSH and UGC Regulations includes virtual and digital academic environments where teacher-student dynamics persist. Social media misconduct by a teacher towards students and recent alumni came within its remit.
- Final Disciplinary Action and Appellate Remedy: The ICC’s findings were supported by substantial, corroborated evidence. The Governing Body’s adoption of the ICC’s recommendations, including compulsory retirement, was not marred by legal or procedural vice. The Court stressed the necessity of exhausting appellate remedies within the regulatory framework before seeking judicial review; the writ petition was thus held to be premature.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutionality and conduct of the ICC, the fairness of the inquiry, and the proportionality of the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The judgment reaffirms virtual interactions between a teacher and students, particularly those over Whatsapp and Facebook fall within the definition of ‘workplace’ under the POSH Act, 2013. The petition was dismissed, confirming the ICC’s findings and the disciplinary measure of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner.
[1]Dr. Amit Kumar vs. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 586/2021 & CM APPL. 42639/2024