Read Time: 06 minutes

The High Court of Calcutta, while deliberating on the case of an English Professor at Burdwan University, observed that if a woman refuses to press sexual harassment charges and gives it in writing to the members of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), then her decision must be respected.

FACTS

The petitioner is a professor in the Department of English and Culture Studies in the University of Burdwan. He was disbarred from examinations and other activities of the university on allegation that he had sexually harassed a student of the English Department (MA) 2016-2018 over a period and thereafter intimidated her so that she did not lodge any complaint against him. Further allegation was that the audio conversation between the professor and the student went viral in different media including social media.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The petitioner contended that as there was no formal complaint of sexual harassment against him in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The petitioner further alleged that the University has bypassed the procedure for inquiring into the allegation of sexual harassment laid under University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Woman Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015. According to the petitioner there was an element of malice /mala fide and the language of the charge-sheet reflected the closed mind-set of the authority. The petitioner allege bias, motivated and pre-determined mind-set of the authority.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondent’s contended that due process was followed by the Respondents to charge the Petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner intimidated the victim to such extent that she refrained from making the complaint out of fear and out of threat that her future academic prospect may be hampered. It has been submitted that the email and audio clips were enough evidence to proceed against the petitioner.

ORDER

The observed that according to the said Sexual Harassment at Workplace and the corresponding Rules that a complaint either from the aggrieved person or on behalf of the aggrieved person is a sine-qua non for the purpose of initiating any proceeding under the said Act.

The Act lays down the competence of the complainant and the time period within which a complaint has to be filed. “The same implies that, any person apart from those mentioned above, is incompetent to file a complaint under the said Act.”

The Court also emphasised on the time bar of six months mentioned in the Act. The Respondent’s action after two years of the alleged incident is in violation of the Act. Hence, the Court held in favour of the petitione in the present matter.

Case Title: Angshuman Kar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Click Here To Access Judgment