The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the test of real likelihood of bias in assessing the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the compliance with UGC Regulations.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (hereafter ‘ICC’) constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘the Act’).

2. The petitioner claims that the ICC is biased as it was constituted by the Executive Committee of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (hereafter ‘the University’) which includes the Vice Chancellor and Rector-I of the University against whom the petitioner has made a complaint of sexual harassment under the Act. The petitioner also claims that constitution of the ICC is contrary to the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereafter ‘the UGC Regulations’) inasmuch as the ICC also includes the Chief Proctor, which is a senior administrative position in the University.

3. The aforesaid controversy arises in the context of the following facts:-

3.1 The petitioner has made a complaint of sexual harassment against Mr. Jagadesh Kumar, the Vice Chancellor of the University; Mr. Chintamani Mahapatra, Rector-I of the University; and Mr. Ramesh Pawar, a Security Guard. The said complaint relates to an incident which is stated to have occurred on 28.02.2017 at approximately 4.35 p.m. At the material time, the petitioner was a student of the University.

3.2 In her complaint, the petitioner stated that a meeting had taken place in KRN Committee Room (Room No. 225) in the JNU Administrative Block at about 3.00 p.m. on 28.02.2017. She states that about 30 students were present for a meeting with the Vice Chancellor, Rector, Proctor, DOS, Registrar and few other members from the JNU Administration. It is stated that the said meeting was on account of various demands made by the student community. The petitioner claims that at about 4.30 PM, the Vice Chancellor, the Rector and other persons stood up to leave the room. At that time, the petitioner was standing inside the room in front of the exit door. She claims that she politely asked the said authorities not to leave in the middle of the meeting and to answer all the questions. The door in front of which the petitioner was standing was latched. She states that Mr. Chintamani (the Rector of the University) screamed at her, while he unlatched the door. She further alleged that she was pushed by Mr. Jagadesh Kumar, the Vice Chancellor, as he moved out of the room. The relevant extract of her complaint is set out below:-

“While the meeting was on in the 225 (Committee Room), Admin Block with the VC, Rector, Proctor, Registrar of some 30 students regarding the AC meeting, UGC gazette and the recent changes, the VC 8in Rector suddenly stood up to leave despite students till asking them questions. There were a couple of female students sitting &standing around the door. Seeing the VC & Rector leave in the middle of the conversation, I started asking them as to why were they leaving and since I was standing right in front of the door, Chintamani screamed at me. Despite knowing that only female students are standing, the Rector, VC along with R. Pawar pushed me and the Rector and Pawar touched me inappropriately.

Please NOTE, there were no female guards or any woman called for this (despite female guards standing right outside). The VC exited and while he was exiting, both the Rector and R. Pawar pushed me holding my arm and pushing me against my chest with their hand. The VC, Rector could have simply asked me to move or stand aside, except all 3 men used their physically farce (sic) on me.”

3.3 The aforesaid claim was lodged with the Gender Sensitization Committee against Sexual Harassment (hereafter ‘GSCASH’) of the University.

3.4 Thereafter, on 01.03.2017, the petitioner addressed an e-mail to the three persons who had allegedly subjected her to sexual harassment