Delhi High Court’s Ruling: Consent, Student-Teacher Relationships, and the Imperative of Addressing Sexual Harassment

Judgement Given On : 25/11/2019

In a significant judgment dated November 25, 2019, the Delhi High Court addressed a compelling appeal that challenged the petitioner’s compulsory retirement. The case revolved around allegations of sexual harassment leveled by a student, hereafter referred to as “M,” against the petitioner, a professor at the University of Delhi. The petitioner raised multiple grounds of contention, encompassing procedural irregularities, interpretations of sexual harassment, and alleged violations of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a professor in the Hindi Department of the University of Delhi, faced allegations of sexual harassment lodged by M, an M.Phil student. M’s complaint dated September 9, 2008, detailed instances of inappropriate conduct, including lewd remarks, unwelcome physical contact, and the exchange of sexually charged text messages. Subsequently, the university initiated an inquiry through its Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (SHCC).

The primary contentions advanced by the petitioner included:

  1. Procedural Irregularities: The petitioner contended that he had not been provided with copies of pertinent evidence, was denied the opportunity to cross-examine M in person, and was unable to present oral and documentary evidence.
  2. Interpretation of Sexual Harassment: The petitioner argued that the definition of sexual harassment should not encompass consensual actions. He claimed that M’s behavior had provoked him into engaging in sexual conversations and actions.
  3. Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner alleged that there were procedural lapses in the inquiry process, including the participation of a member he perceived as biased and M’s refusal to appear for cross-examination.

Court’s Determination:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, upholding his compulsory retirement. The court rendered the following key legal determinations:

  1. Interpretation of Sexual Harassment: The court provided clarity that consent in cases of sexual harassment is a complex matter. It emphasized that consent obtained through coercion or duress is not valid consent. Even if the alleged victim did not physically resist, it does not constitute consent if the circumstances involved coercion or duress.
  2. Student-Teacher Relationship: The court underscored the sacred and revered nature of the student-teacher relationship. It deemed any sexual overtones within such a relationship as unacceptable, contravening both moral and legal standards. Consequently, it rejected any defense that asserted the student had welcomed the advances.
  3. Transfer of the Case to ACC: The court validated the university’s decision to transfer the case from the Universal Units Complaints Committee (UUCC) to the Apex Complaints Committee (ACC), following the university’s established procedures.
  4. Natural Justice: The court found no substantial violations of the principles of natural justice throughout the inquiry process. It noted that the petitioner had been provided with the complaint and an opportunity to respond. The petitioner’s admission of inappropriate conduct played a significant role in the inquiry.

In conclusion, the court held that the acts committed by the petitioner were legally impermissible from the outset. Consent, in such cases, could not serve as a valid defence. The inquiry process demonstrated substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the petitioner’s compulsory retirement was considered just and fair, without being deemed harsh or unreasonable.