Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3435
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Bader Sayeed
Versus
Southern India Education Trust & Others
W.P. No. 480 of 2010 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 7 of 2010
Decided On : 03-08-2012
For the Petitioner:G. Rajagopalan, S.C., for M/s. S. Thiruvenkatasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, C. Mani Shankar, R3, Vijay Narayanan, S.C., for R. Krishnamoorty, R4, A.L. Somayaji, S. Arun Prasad, Advocates.
Ratios
a. Educational institution would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court even if such institution does not receive aid from the Government.
b. On the basis of anonymous complaint stating sexual harassment in working place, enquiry could not be commenced.
c. An anonymous or pseudonymous complaint without proof, has no value at all.
d. A writ petition filed to enquire into anonymous and pseudonymous complaints without any credible evidence to support the allegations is not maintainable.
Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.21, 226-Fundamental right-Right to life-Right to dignity-Sexual harassment-Minority institution-Writ-Maintainability-Anonymous complaint-There were some complaints of sexual harassment against a member of the executive committee of a minority women educational institution and the petitioner demanded enquiry into those allegations by an independent committee-While the petitioner submitted that enquiry by the executive committee would be biased and as per the judgment in Vishaka case, it had to be enquired by a permanent independent body, respondents resisted it by contending that the institution was an unaided minority institution and so not a ’State’ and writ petition could not be filed against it and the letters written to the purported complainants got returned as ’no such person’ and so the complaints produced were anonymous and in the absence of complainant, enquiry could not be conducted-Held, in case of complaint of sexual harassment in working places, existence of complainant was must-Since the purported complainants named in the communications were non-existent, enquiry could not be conducted into the allegations mentioned in the letters-As the respondent institution was rendering education which was a public duty, writ petition was maintainable against it-To maintain writ petition, genuineness of the allegation was material and not the genuineness in the intention of the petitioner-Writ petition was dismissed.
(B)Constitution of India-Art.226-Educational institution-Aid-Writ-Maintainability-Educational institution would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court even if such institution does not receive aid from the Government.
The contention of the respondents that the 1st respondent would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction, cannot be countenanced in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court for the limited purpose as to whether a writ petition is maintainable or not against a trust which runs educational institutions. Even if the educational institutions do not receive any grant from the Government, still they would be governed by the Acts and rules, framed by the Government and in such a view of the matter, the contentions to the contra cannot be accepted.
Para 59
(C)Constitution of India-Art.21-Fundamental right-Right to life-Right to dignity-Sexual harassment-Anonymous complaint-Enquiry-On the basis of anonymous complaint stating sexual harassment in working place, enquiry could not be commenced-An anonymous or pseudonymous complaint without proof, has no value at all.
Vishaka’s case does not contemplate any enquiry into all such anonymous or pseudonymous complaints alleging sexual harassment, without credible evidence. If the contentions of the petitioner have to be accepted, then all unconfirmed unworthy, anonymous or pseudonymous complaints, without any credible evidence have to be enquired and this Court would be flooded with writ petitions by unscrupulous persons. That it would lead to opening of a "Pandora Box". The arguments of the petitioner is fallacious. Para 73
An anonymous or pseudonymous complaint without proof, has no value at all. Judicial notice of such complaints unless supported with credible evidence, cannot be considered as a document and it has no evidenciary value, for the reason that facts have to be proved. No presumption of the genuineness of the contents of such anonymous and pseudonymous complaints can be made. Even the contents of an affidavit, a solemn statement made in the Court, has to be proved. Para 104
(D)Constitution of India-Art.21, 226-Fundamental right-Right to life-Right to dignity-Sexual harassment-Writ-Maintainability-Anonymous complaint- A writ petition filed to enquire into anonymous and pseudonymous complaints without any credible evidence to support the allegations is not maintainable.
A writ petition filed to enquire into anonymous and pseudonymous complaints without any credible evidence to support the allegations is not maintainable and no roving enquiry can be ordered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Para 109
1. A practising Advocate and Joint Secretary of SIET, Chennai, has challenged the communication of the 1st Respondent dated 01.01.2010 in SIET Ref. No. 6473/10/2010 and sought for a direction to the first respondent to constitute a Committee as per Vishaka's Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to enquire into the allegations made against the Respondents 3 and 4.
2. On the basis of the pleadings and the material on record, in the form of Typed Set of papers filed by the contesting parties, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties advanced arguments. Decisions were also cited.
3. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is apracticing lawyer and hails from a reputed family and held various positions. She was also an Additional Advocate General, during the years 2004-2006 for the State of Tamilnadu; Chair-Person of the State Minorities Commission between 1991-1996; Chair-Person of the Tamilnadu Wakf Board between 2002-2006; Correspondent of the Justice Basheer Ahmed Syed College for Women from the year 1991 to 1998 and Member of the 1st Respondent Trust/Society; and social activist fighting for the cause of women and children.
4. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the present Writ Petition has been filed in the interest of the girl students and the staff, including teaching staff, studying and working in the Institutions administered by the 1st Respondent Trust. The 2nd Respondent herein is the Chairman of the Trust and the 3rd Respondent, who is the brother of the 2nd Respondent is the Correspondent of the Fathima Basheer Matriculation Higher Secondary School for Girls and Dyslexia Centre. The 4th Respondent is the son of one of the founders of the Trust and now the Correspondent of Justice Basheer Ahamed Sayeed College for Women and Justice Basheer Ahamed Sayeed Boys School and said to be practicing as an advocate.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a series of letters were received by the petitioner as well as by the other Members of the Trust, making serious allegations against respondents 3 and 4, including allegation of sexual harassment against the staff members of the college and school. According to him, mere reading of the complaints would show that the allegations against respondents 3 and 4 are serious in nature. Some of the petitions are signed and some of them are anonymous.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the allegations made in the petitions are true then serious consequences follows. In the circumstances, on 12th October, 2009, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Trust, the 2nd respondent stating that the allegations levelled against the members of the Executive Council, amounts to serious breach of conduct by them and that the charges must be thoroughly investigated and therefore, it is mandatory to constitute a Committee to deal with sexual harassment in the working place, as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1997 SC 3911.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the second respondent herein has sent a reply, dated 27.10.2009, stating that two of the said letters forwarded by the petitioner were anonymous and the other two bear some signatures and that he is making his own enquiries to ascertain the authenticity of those letters and that he would proceed further in the matter, after such enquiries. Thereafter, on 05.12.2009, the petitioner sent a letter to the 2nd Respondent, stating that his personal enquiries in the matter would not satisfy the legal requirements and that a Committee is required to be constituted, keeping in line with the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court of India. Even thereafter, no enquiry Committee was constituted and in fact, the 1st Respondent-Executive Council proceeded to re-appoint the 4th Respondent as the Correspondent of the Women's College and t
