Facts of the Case

The case involved Dr. Amit Kumar, a professor at Delhi University, who challenged the disciplinary action of compulsory retirement initiated against him based on sexual harassment complaints filed under the POSH Act, 2013. Four separate complaints were received three from current students and one from an alumna of the same college. The complaints alleged that the professor had sent sexually suggestive and inappropriate messages to them via Facebook and WhatsApp, including texts such as “hug me, kiss me,” and had asked students to meet him privately. Screenshots of these exchanges were annexed to the complaints. The Internal Committee (IC) of the college conducted an inquiry, found him guilty of misconduct, and recommended disciplinary action, which the University accepted. Dr. Kumar filed a writ petition challenging both the IC’s process and the University’s final decision.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner raised several procedural and jurisdictional objections. He argued that all IC actions except the recording of complainants’ evidence were void under an earlier court order dated 21.05.2018. He claimed that the IC had unlawfully delegated its functions to a sub-committee, included undergraduate students in violation of UGC Regulations, and replaced the external member without court approval. He further contended that three of the complaints were time-barred, and the fourth filed by an alumna was beyond the IC’s jurisdiction. Finally, he claimed that the alleged acts did not constitute sexual harassment “at the workplace,” as the exchanges occurred on social media and were of a personal nature.

Contentions of the Respondent

The University defended the IC’s inquiry and findings, asserting that it was conducted in accordance with due process under the POSH Act and UGC Regulations. The IC had found that the interactions although occurring via digital platforms originated from the work relationship and were therefore covered under the statutory definition of “workplace.” It also justified the delayed complaints on grounds of psychological trauma and fear of reprisal. The University submitted that the IC’s conclusions were based on credible documentary evidence and that no violation of natural justice occurred during the proceedings.

Court’s Observations

Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the IC’s inquiry and the disciplinary action, refusing to interfere under Article 226. The Court reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited and does not entail re-evaluation of evidence unless there is perversity or breach of natural justice. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, the Court affirmed that a civil standard of proof based on a preponderance of probabilities is applicable to IC inquiries, not the higher threshold required in criminal trials. It also clarified that procedural lapses would only vitiate the process if prejudice were demonstrably caused to the delinquent. The Court dismissed objections regarding limitation, citing the IC’s valid reasoning that fear, stigma, and the petitioner’s own pleas for forgiveness reasonably explained the delay. Most notably, the Court upheld the IC’s conclusion that interactions over Facebook and WhatsApp fell within the ambit of “workplace,” as the petitioner had initiated contact using details shared for academic purposes and was not a personal acquaintance of the students. Although the Court did not elaborate independently on the definition of “workplace,” it accepted the IC’s reasoning without modification.

Court’s Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld both the findings of the IC and the University’s decision to compulsorily retire Dr. Amit Kumar. It affirmed that virtual interactions between teachers and students conducted via digital platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook, when originating from an academic relationship constitute workplace conduct under the POSH Act. The Court emphasized the deleterious effect of such harassment on young students and reiterated the importance of safeguarding their mental and emotional well-being. It also called for sensitivity in handling such cases, especially given the hierarchical power dynamics involved.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai