Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Arti Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru University - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9407 of 2019
Decided On : 11-12-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dibyanshu Pandey, Ms. Simran Bhagat & Mr. Veeraragavan N., Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Monica Arora, Standing Counsel, JNU with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Ms. Anushkha Ashok along with Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar., Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel GNCTD with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the university to comply with the recommendations of the ICC, ensure a fair hearing in the appeal process, and address grievances of the students while maintaining the functioning of the administrative office.
Headnote:
Sexual Harassment - University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institution) Regulations, 2015 - [5, 10(3)] - The court discussed the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the actions required by the university pursuant to the recommendations. The court highlighted the key provisions of the regulations, including the censure of defendants, imposition of fines, and the recommendation for re-consideration of the complainant's application for registration in the Ph.D. program. The court emphasized the need for the university to comply with the recommendations and ensure a fair hearing for the complainant in the appeal process.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the JNU regarding sexual harassment and sought re-registration in the Ph.D. program. The university failed to decide on the appeal and representation for re-registration, leading to ambiguity and lack of clarity on the status of the appeals and recommendations.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the university to produce the original record of the appeals, file a specific affidavit on the status of the decision, and ensure the presence of the Registrar in court. The court emphasized the need for the university to comply with the recommendations and ensure a fair hearing for the complainant in the appeal process.
Issues: Ambiguity regarding the status of the appeals and recommendations, failure of the university to decide on the appeal and representation for re-registration, and lack of clarity on the actions taken by the university.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the recommendations of the ICC and the need for a fair hearing in the appeal process. The court also highlighted the university's obligation to ensure the functioning of the administrative office and engage with the students to address grievances.
Final Decision: The court directed the university to comply with the previous orders, ensure the functioning of the administrative office, and engage with the students to address grievances. The matter was listed for further compliance and actions by the university.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The Petitioner had filed a complaint on 9th January, 2018 before the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter ‘ICC’) of the JNU, constituted under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institution) Regulations, 2015. The ICC submitted its recommendations on 2nd August, 2018. One of the recommendations of the Committee was for re-consideration of the application of the Petitioner for registration in the Ph.D. program. The said recommendation reads as under:
“5. In case the complainant applies for registration to the Ph.D. Programme again it is recommended that the competent authority shall reconsider her application and under no circumstances her application should be rejected on the grounds of delay.”
2. The Petitioner also simultaneously filed an appeal against the other recommendations of the ICC. Three further representations were made before the Vice-Chancellor. However, she was neither afforded a hearing nor was given re-registration into the Ph.D. program. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
“It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to form an Appeals Committee to consider the Appeal of the Petitioner in sexual harassment complaint no. FILE/ICC/11B/01-2018.
ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to decide the appeal within stipulated time of thirty days (30 days) as mandated by JNU ICC rules.
iii. To issue any orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the matter.”
3. When the petition was listed for the first time i.e. on 30th August, 2019, an alleged office order dated 16th October, 2018 was handed over which, according to the ld. counsel for the JNU, disposed of the appeal filed by the Petitioner. A copy of the same was handed over to the ld. counsel for the Petitioner to seek instructions. Thereafter, on 12th September, 2019, it was noticed that the document dated 10th September, 2018, which was handed over by ld. counsel for the JNU, had a noting to the following effect:
“In view of above, the prayers of appellant cannot be considered by appellate authority and the recommendations of the ICC are upheld."
Thus, there was ambiguity as to whether the appeal itself was disposed of or not. Further, insofar as the order dated 16th October, 2018 was concerned, the same was only dealing with Recommendation No.9 of the ICC. There was no clarity on behalf of the JNU as to the remaining recommendations and the hearing of the appeal, as also the representation for re-registration.
4. Some internal notes were relied upon by the JNU after reviewing the said documents. On 12th September, 2019, this Court had observed as under:
“8. A perusal of the above note in hand writing clearly shows that appeals against the recommendations of the ICC have been filed both by the Petitioner as also the Defendants in the proceedings before the ICC. The appeals were yet to be considered and no order was passed as on 10th September, 2018. Thus, the submission made before the Court that an order has been passed that no registration can be granted to the Petitioner appears to not be borne out from the documents handed over to the Court.
9. The various recommendations of the ICC need to be captured at this stage and are therefore set out herein below: -
“1. Defendant no. l should be censured in terms of the CCS (CCA) rules 1965 for creating uncertainty by not giving NOC to complainant as well as directing complainant to de-register against her will.
2. The defendant no.2 did not place the application of the complainant for change of supervisor before the faculty meeting again was a lapse on his part for which it is recommended that the defendant no.2 should be censured in terms of the CCS (CCA) rules.
3
