Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Ms. A, was appointed as a Yoga Instructor in 2015 at a central government physical education institute under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. In March 2019, she alleged that while heading to take an early morning yoga class, the then Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the institute, Respondent No. 6, inappropriately touched her on the lower back. Due to his powerful position and her fear of professional repercussions, she refrained from making a formal complaint at that time. However, on August 28, 2019, she was summoned to the VC’s office on the pretext of a leave-related complaint from the Head of Department (HOD), Respondent No. 8. She alleged that the VC used this as an opportunity to demand sexual favours, threatening her job security and reputation. Following this, on October 14, 2019, she lodged a formal complaint with the Department of Sports, alleging persistent sexual harassment, threats to sabotage her career, tampering of her official records, and the creation of a hostile work environment.

The complaint was forwarded to the Internal Committee (IC), but the inquiry was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the petitioner faced further institutional harassment including false complaints by her HOD, misuse of administrative powers, and continued emotional distress. Despite these complaints, no prompt remedial action was taken by the authorities. The petitioner also alleged that the IC was either not constituted properly or was biased, and a six-member committee was informally constituted by the VC, seemingly as retaliation for her complaints to external bodies. Subsequently, she filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was initially dismissed. Her petitions to the High Court failed, but the Supreme Court later directed registration of an FIR. The IC ultimately held the VC guilty of conduct unbecoming of his post and offensive to the dignity of a junior woman employee.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that she was subjected to unwelcome physical contact, sexual advances, mental and emotional harassment, and threats to her career by the VC. She claimed that the VC deliberately damaged her personal and academic profile and intimidated her with the threat of administrative action, including tampering with her leave records. According to her, other faculty members, including the HOD and an Assistant Professor, acted in collusion with the VC to harass her further. She alleged that false complaints and show-cause notices were issued against her as part of a systematic campaign of retaliation after she refused to comply with the VC’s demands.

She also asserted that although she was appointed as non-teaching staff, she was arbitrarily assigned teaching responsibilities and hostel warden duties. When she requested to be relieved of these additional duties, she was again targeted by the administration. The petitioner stated that she made several complaints to various authorities, including the Women’s Commission and Human Rights Commission, but received no substantive relief. She further contended that a six-member committee was constituted without proper authority under UGC norms and was used to target her. She eventually applied for leave on the grounds that she felt unsafe at the workplace and feared further harassment. She emphasized that despite the Supreme Court’s directions, no effective action was taken under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), thereby violating her right to a safe work environment.

Contentions of the Respondent (VC & Institute)

The then Vice-Chancellor, Respondent No. 6, denied all allegations and described the complaint as malicious, fabricated, and intended to damage his personal and professional reputation. He asserted that the allegations were part of a conspiracy to prevent his reappointment and that the petitioner had a history of making baseless allegations. He claimed that the petitioner was irregular in her duties, having availed of over 435 days of various types of leave excluding CL (Casual Leave) in five years, and had strained relations with her colleagues. According to him, she was unwilling to take up routine responsibilities like hostel warden duties and used complaints as a tool to escape work.

The VC submitted that he never interacted with the petitioner privately and that all his meetings with women employees were held in the presence of others, which could be corroborated by CCTV footage. He argued that the petitioner did not raise any allegation of sexual harassment in her earlier complaints made between March and October 2019 and only mentioned such allegations after he learned of a possible conspiracy and reported it to the police on October 16, 2019. He maintained that he had never misused his position and that the IC process was delayed due to the pandemic. Furthermore, he claimed that the IC members were neutral and qualified, and that any influence attributed to him was speculative. The VC concluded that the entire complaint was motivated by an attempt to misuse the legal process.

Court’s Observations

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made strong observations against the conduct of both the institute and the state authorities. The Court held that the petitioner had indeed been subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace and that her dignity as a woman and an employee was violated. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), stating that once a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police must register an FIR without delay. It found that the police had waited for three years to act and only did so after being directed by the Supreme Court. The Court labelled the police’s inaction as “inhumane and unsympathetic,” holding them accountable for exacerbating the petitioner’s trauma.

The Court also found the institute guilty of failing in its legal obligation to provide a safe working environment under the POSH Act. It took serious note of the IC’s findings, which described the VC’s behaviour as “offensive to the dignity” of the complainant and unbecoming of the head of an institution. The Court referred to the precedent in Global Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Local Complaints Committee (2019), underscoring that sexual harassment at the workplace is incompatible with the dignity and honour of women and that employers must take all possible steps to prevent such conduct. Notably, the Court found no challenge had been raised against the IC’s report and therefore accepted its findings as valid and binding.

Court’s Order

In its final judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled comprehensively in favour of the petitioner. It directed Respondent No. 6, the former VC, to pay ₹35 lakhs to the petitioner as compensation for loss of salary, pain and suffering, damage to reputation, and emotional distress. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹5 lakhs on the State of Madhya Pradesh for the police’s delay in registering the FIR and directed that this amount be recovered from the erring police officials personally. Additionally, a fine of ₹1 lakh was imposed on the institute for failing to take timely and appropriate action under the POSH Act.

Furthermore, the Court directed that if the petitioner wished to be transferred to a different institution to ensure her safety and well-being, the authorities must consider and act upon such a request expeditiously.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai