Calcutta High Court’s Ruling On The Application Of The Posh Act

Calcutta High Court’s Ruling On The Application Of The Posh Act, Suspension Orders, And Icc Constitution In Student-Related Cases

Judgement Given On : 24/01/2022

Introduction:

The recent judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of PKN vs. Union of India and others addresses critical issues pertaining to the application of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act of 2013, suspension orders, and the establishment of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in cases involving students. This comprehensive legal analysis offers a detailed examination of the case and dissects the pivotal legal facets elucidated by the court.

Factual Background:

• The petitioner, an educator, had been serving at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ravangla, South Sikkim, since 2011.
• In February 2020, a slew of students lodged complaints against the petitioner, alleging multiple instances of sexual harassment.
• The school’s principal promptly reported these complaints to the police, leading to the petitioner’s arrest.
• Subsequently, the petitioner found himself under an extended suspension from duty, and an internal committee was constituted to investigate the allegations.

Critical Legal Issues and Court’s Pronouncements:

1. Applicability of POSH Act to Students:

Issue: Does the POSH Act extend its protective ambit to complaints lodged by students?

Court’s Verdict:

• The petitioner challenged the application of the POSH Act in cases involving students.
• The court conducted an intricate examination of the POSH Act, specifically focusing on its definition of “aggrieved woman” under Section 2(a).
• The court unequivocally determined that the POSH Act’s definition of “aggrieved woman” encompassed women of all age groups, whether or not they were employed, provided they alleged instances of sexual harassment.
• Consequently, the POSH Act’s provisions were deemed applicable to students, ensuring their comprehensive protection against sexual harassment within educational institutions.

2. Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC):

Issue: Was the formation of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in accordance with the prevailing legal framework?

Court’s Pronouncement:

• The petitioner contended that the school authorities should have instituted an ICC as mandated by the POSH Act.
• The school authorities relied on a 1993 notification that prescribed the establishment of a committee for summary trial in cases of sexual harassment. This notification had previously received judicial validation.
• The court recognized the evolving legal landscape following the Vishaka judgment in 1997 and the subsequent enactment of the POSH Act.
• It was emphasized that contemporary requirements necessitated organizations, including educational institutions, to establish ICCs compliant with the POSH Act’s stipulations.
• The court underscored that the ICC formed for summary trial had failed to adhere to the POSH Act’s mandatory requisites, rendering it devoid of statutory validity.

3. Legality of Suspension Order:

Issue: Is the suspension order issued against the petitioner legally sustainable?

Court’s Pronouncement:

• The petitioner challenged the legality of his suspension order, asserting a violation of Rule 10(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules of 1965 (CCS CCA Rules).
• The court invoked the precedent set by the Ajay Kumar Choudhary case in 2015, which deemed suspension orders exceeding 90 days without justifiable grounds as unlawful.
• Upon examination, the court determined that the petitioner’s suspension order indeed contravened Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS CCA Rules.
• Accordingly, the court ruled that suspension orders should not extend beyond three months unless a charge-sheet had been duly served. Extensions could only be warranted following the service of the charge-sheet.

Conclusion:

The verdict delivered by the Calcutta High Court assumes profound significance, establishing a clear precedent affirming the applicability of the POSH Act to cases involving students. It underscores the compelling obligation for educational institutions and other entities to establish ICCs in strict accordance with the Act’s stipulations. Moreover, the court reiterates the critical importance of suspension orders aligning with relevant rules, emphasizing that they must not exceed three months in the absence of a served charge-sheet. In this specific case, the committee formed for summary trial was held non-compliant with the POSH Act’s requisites, leading to its annulment by the court. This meticulous legal analysis thus encapsulates the intricate details and nuances of the court’s judgment.