Unveiling A Disturbing Saga Of Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

Judgement Given On : 19/06/2015

Uncovering the Facts

This case revolves around a courageous student, hereafter referred to as the “Complainant,” pursuing her studies in Mass Communication and Journalism at Tezpur University. In 2013, the Complainant took a significant step by reporting an incident of alleged sexual harassment involving Mr. Murthy, the Head of the MCJ department. She filed her initial complaint before the Chairperson of the Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment (CCSH) the very next day after the incident.

However, the gravity of the situation demanded a detailed account of the alleged harassment. Approximately a week later, the Complainant submitted a comprehensive complaint to CCSH. This document meticulously outlined the disturbing incidents of harassment, complete with dates and corroborating witnesses. To compound the seriousness of the case, three other students also came forward, filing similar complaints against Mr. Murthy via email.

To provide a glimpse into the nature of the Complainant’s second complaint, we have extracted excerpts from it as it appears in the judgment:

  • Mr. Murthy suggested that female students offered “something” to male faculty members for favorable treatment.
  • He insinuated that the Complainant needed to meet him at his home to “correct” her report.
  • Mr. Murthy allegedly held the Complainant by her waist against her will.
  • He pressured the Complainant into going to his room under duress.
  • Offensive remarks about the character of Northeast girls and comparisons to students from other regions.

A Startling Revelation

The Complainant’s ordeal didn’t end with the filing of her detailed complaint. Shockingly, 31 students from the MCJ department signed and forwarded a complaint of sexual harassment against Mr. Murthy, further corroborating her claims. This overwhelming show of support demonstrated the gravity of the situation and the far-reaching impact of the alleged harassment within the academic community.

CCSH conducted an inquiry into the matter, during which Mr. Murthy did not deny offering the Complainant a higher grade if she visited him at his residence. The witnesses confirmed the Complainant’s version of events. Consequently, CCSH found Mr. Murthy guilty of sexual harassment, expressing concerns about the safety of students under his tutelage.

The university took swift action based on CCSH’s findings and ordered an inquiry proceeding, which also found Mr. Murthy guilty. He was subsequently removed from service. Unsatisfied with this outcome, Mr. Murthy sought recourse through a writ petition before the High Court.

The Court’s Verdict

The High Court of Gauhati’s deliberation, several critical points emerged:

  1. The Nature of the Complaint:
    • The Court recognized that the Complainant’s initial complaint may not have contained every detail of the incident, but it emphasized that her state of shock following the harassment must be considered. Her subsequent detailed complaint remained consistent, providing specific dates and times of the incidents.
  2. Inquiry Procedure:
    • The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s stance in the Medha Kotowal Lele case, highlighting that the CCSH report could be treated as a finding of guilt for the purpose of imposing a penalty. While acknowledging that the subsequent inquiry was unnecessary, the Court found no infirmity in the inquiry officer’s proceedings.
  3. Unacceptable Language:
    • The Court chastised Mr. Murthy for using offensive and uncouth language. Such expressions, it stressed, had no place in civilized society, particularly in the presence of female students.

The Consequences

This case underscores the vital importance of creating safe and harassment-free environments within educational institutions. It serves as a stark reminder of the need for institutions to address complaints of sexual harassment swiftly and effectively. For victims, this case highlights the importance of speaking out against harassment, even when powerful figures are involved.

Tezpur University’s decisive action against Mr. Murthy demonstrates the commitment of educational institutions to uphold the rights and dignity of their students. It sends a strong message that sexual harassment will not be tolerated, regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s stature within the institution.

As this case reverberates in the corridors of academia, it serves as a call to action for all educational institutions to ensure the safety and well-being of their students and staff, free from the specter of sexual harassment.