The main legal point established in the judgment is that Ordinance XV-D applies to complaints of sexual harassment made by any member of the University against any other member, irrespective of gender. The composition of the Committee was deemed valid, and the court rejected the petitioner's argument that the inquiry procedure was unconstitutional.

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. The petitioner before us is teaching in Ramjas College of Delhi University and took over charge as its Vice-Principal in January, 2007. 04 male students of the College submitted complaints alleging sexual harassment at the hands of the petitioner, to the College Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee), constituted under Ordinance XV-D of the University of Delhi which prohibits and provides for punishment in cases of sexual harassment. Charges based upon the complaints of the students were served upon the petitioner. However, the copies of their complaints were not provided to him. The Committee conducted its proceedings in 05 sittings on 05 different dates. The Committee met 04 of the complainants in person and interacted with them. On the basis of the written complaints and interaction with the complainants, the Committee concluded that there was a prima facie case of sexual harassment against the petitioner and therefore an inquiry into those complaints was required to be held in terms of provisions contained in Ordinance XV-D.

2. A Sub-Committee was set up in terms of Clause 2.7 & 8 of the Ordinance to conduct the inquiry. The Sub-Committee consisted of 05 members of the Committee. The following 06 charges were framed by the Sub-Committee against the petitioner and were communicated to him in writing on 5.11.2007.

Abused his position as a teacher to cause the sexual harassment of xxxxx, B.A.(H) Pol. Sc.III, through inappropriate physical contact over a period of two years, including non-consensual sexually explicit physical contact in a hospital/nursing home in September 2006, intimidating him when he resisted such contact, and causing the intimidation of Adeel Ahmed after he had complained to the College Complaints Committee.

Abused his position as the Convenor, Admission Committee, to cause the sexual harassment of xxxxx, B.A.(H) History II through inappropriate non-consensual physical contact on the 19th and the 20th October, 2007 in his Model Town residence, including hugging, kissing and physical contact with genitalia.

Abused his position as a teacher as the Convenor, Admission Committee, to cause the sexual harassment of xxxxx, B.A.(H) Pol. Sc.II, through inappropriate non-consensual physical contact over a period of more than one year, including kissing and physical contact with genitalia, in Delhi and elsewhere.

Abused his position as a teacher and as the Vice-Principal to cause the sexual harassment of Abdullah Nasir, B.A.(H) Pol. Sc. III, through non-consensual inappropriate physical contact and verbal conduct of a sexual nature over a period of more than one year, including hugging and kissing in his residence and in a hospital/nursing home in September 2006, and by promising rewards for sexual compliance by awarding high marks in the Internal Assessment in papers taught by him and by others in the Department of Political Science, Ramjas College.

Abused his position as a teacher by using his interpretations of classical Greek philosophy and of the lives of Greek Philosophers as a pre-meditated preface to the sexual harassment and abuse of his students in the Department of Political Science, Ramjas College.

Caused the intimidation of the complainants and others and thus interfered in the proceedings of the College Complaints Committee in the instant case.

(names omitted by us)

3. The Sub-Committee declined to supply copies of the complaints to the petitioner despite the request made by him and informed him that he would get an opportunity to rebut the charges in his deposition before the Sub-Committee. The main reasons given for not providing the copies of the complaints to the petitioner were that the complainants had requested that their complaints should not be shown to the petitioner and there was no provision in the Ordinance to provide such copies to the person charged with sexual harassment. The complainants deposed before the Sub-Committee on 15