By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction
In a significant judgement, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court addressed the disciplinary actions taken by the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) against a final year law student, who was found guilty of sexual harassment multiple times. The Court’s decision to modify the student’s indefinite expulsion to a one- year suspension, coupled with mandatory community service, balances the severity of the misconduct with a proportional punishment, which has sparked discussion on the balance between the punitive measures and the Right to Education.
Case Background
The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present proceeding:
The petitioner hereinafter referred to as ‘X’, a student of the 2019-2024 B.A.LL.B. (Honors) batch is alleged to have indulged in objectionable behavior with the respondent hereinafter referred to as ‘Y’.
| SNo. | Date | Event |
| 1. | February 26 & 27, 2023 | the reported incident of sexual harassment took place |
| 2. | March 1, 2023 | ‘Y’ raised complaint to the Internal Complaint Committee of Maharashtra National Law University. |
| 3. | May 20, 2023 | IC submitted its report on the matter.[1] |
| 4. | Date not mentioned | ‘X’ found guilty of sexual harassment twice.
First- ‘X’ was punished and ordered to be expelled from the hostel, after which there seems no reform in his conduct. Second- again found guilty of sexual harassment. It was thus recommended that ‘X’ should be expelled from the University Rolls. |
| 5. | June 17, 2023 | The In- charge Registrar issued an office order expelling ‘X’ from the MNLU with immediate effect. |
| 6. | Date not mentioned | X’ preferred an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor, but the latter found the appeal to be without merit. |
| 7. | Date not mentioned | ‘X’ was allowed to take end semester examination along with repeaters as a matter of grace. |
| 8. | Date not mentioned | ‘X’ being aggrieved by the decision of appeal basis the procedural irregularities and while ‘Y’ preferred an appeal on the ground that the proceeding before the Vice-Chancellor concluded without hearing her. |
| 9. | March 26, 2024 | Both filed writ petitions separately[2] and both were therefore heard together before the High Court.[3] |
Issue before the Court
- That whether a final year student’s expulsion for an indefinite time, as recommended by the IC, will lead to ‘academic death’ of the student and was it in line with the principal of proportionality?
- That whether the victims right to safety and dignity be balanced with accused right to education and reform?
- To what extent the courts can intervene into the disciplinary actions of the educational institutions?
Legal Framework and Principles Involved
- University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015.
- Doctrine of Proportionality.
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Arguments Advanced by the Parties.
Contentions of Petitioner ‘X’
- Disproportionality of Punishment: The petitioner contented that the order passed for expulsion was arbitrary and excessive considering the nature of offence. He mentioned that this punishment effectively amounted to ‘Life sentence’ in an academic context, depriving them of future opportunities.
It was also contented that instead of the penalty of expulsion, a lesser punishment coupled with steps for reformation ought to have been imposed on ‘X’.[4]
- Procedural Irregulaties: The IC was required to have inquired into the complaint in accordance with Working Rules for Internal Complaints Committee of MNLU, Mumbai. IC should have granted reasonable opportunity to both parties to present their cases.
The Petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine ‘Y’ or witnesses examined by ‘Y’.
That, 2015 Regulations mandates to issue a show cause notice before imposing punishment. However, no such notice was issued, which caused severe prejudice to ‘X’.
- Failure to Consider Mitigating Factors: The petitioner also highlighted that the IC and the University authorities should have considered the mitigating factors like the young age of the petitioner, the willingness to undergo sensitive training and counselling. His statement ‘on May 21, 2024, ‘that after careful consideration he decided not to continue with any further arguments or contentions and that he did not wish to prolong the said process any further and that his primary goal at this stage is to move forward in his life and focus on his academic and personal growth’[5]. He contended that the Institutional mechanism failed to explore alternative corrective measures.
The Court’s Judgment:
The bench of Hon’ble Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil focused on the gravity of the petitioner’s misconduct against the far-reaching result of expulsion for an indefinite period. In its judgment, the court emphasized on the importance of addressing sexual harassment in educational institutions and reaffirmed that such behavior must have deterrent and serious consequences.
The Hon’ble Court highlighted the fact that an indefinite expulsion was severe and harsh, a cue was drawn from the decision in M/s. Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL & Others[6], where the Court held- blacklisting of an entity for an indefinite period would be harsh and could result in economic death. Similarly, in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and others,[7]–suspension of an employee for a long period of over eleven years was found to be harsh.
Therefore, considering the above mentioned judgements and petitioner’s educational background and his future prospects with regards to his career, the Court has held that the indefinite expulsion would be limited to the one academic year, the Court allowed the petitioner to continue his degree after the 2024-25 academic year. In addition to this, the petitioner was ordered to do community service for a period of one year under the guidance of the university’s Vice Chancellor. Once the petitioner completes the community service the Court orders to release the petitioner’s withheld result of the final year.
The Hon’ble Court concluded that this punishment was proportional to the offence committed by the petitioner and that the Court ensures that the petitioner faces meaningful repercussions while giving him an opportunity to complete his degree, that the petitioner shall not be deprived of the Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Right to Education. The Hon’ble Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil laid emphasis on the issue of proportionality and the severity of the offence committed and held that, ‘while this decision might not seem entirely equitable, it reflected a balanced application of the doctrine of proportionality, considering the petitioner’s academic future and the nature of offense committed by him’.[8]
Additionally, the Court directed the University to consider the suggestions and the recommendations of the IC regarding the selection of venues for university events, basis that the incident in question occurred during a moot court competition hosted at a private lounge-bar, where alcohol was being served. The Court laid emphasizes on the ‘remedial measures’ and directed the University to consider these factors in future as they play a major role in contributing to disputes.
Surbhi Gandotra, Associate Advocate at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[1] Atharva Prakash Naukarkar vs Maharashtra National Law University 10 October, 2024
[2] Writ Petition (L) No.31150 of 2023 | Writ Petition (L) No.9713 of 2024
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81499738/
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81499738/
[6] 2013 INSC 673
[7] 1987 INSC 238
[8] https://www.poshequili.com/bombay-hc-relief-law-student-harassment-allegations/