{"id":1372,"date":"2025-02-03T09:25:01","date_gmt":"2025-02-03T09:25:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ssrana.in\/posh-law\/?p=1372"},"modified":"2025-03-06T06:07:56","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T06:07:56","slug":"indefinite-expulsion-on-grounds-of-sexual-harassment-is-disproportionate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssrana.in\/posh-law\/articles\/indefinite-expulsion-on-grounds-of-sexual-harassment-is-disproportionate\/","title":{"rendered":"Indefinite Expulsion on grounds of sexual harassment is Disproportionate."},"content":{"rendered":"

By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

In a significant judgement, the Hon\u2019ble 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\u2019s decision to modify the student\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Case Background<\/p>\n

The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present proceeding:<\/p>\n

The petitioner hereinafter referred to as \u2018X\u2019, 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 \u2018Y\u2019.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Case Background<\/caption>\n
SNo.<\/strong><\/td>\nDate<\/strong><\/td>\nEvent<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1.<\/strong><\/td>\nFebruary 26 & 27, 2023<\/td>\nthe reported incident of sexual harassment took place<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/strong><\/td>\nMarch 1, 2023<\/td>\n\u2018Y\u2019 raised complaint to the Internal Complaint Committee of Maharashtra National Law University.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/strong><\/td>\nMay 20, 2023<\/td>\nIC submitted its report on the matter.[1]<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/strong><\/td>\nDate not mentioned<\/td>\n\u2018X\u2019 found guilty of sexual harassment twice.<\/p>\n

First- \u2018X\u2019 was punished and ordered to be expelled from the hostel, after which there seems no reform in his conduct.<\/p>\n

Second- again found guilty of sexual harassment. It was thus recommended that \u2018X\u2019 should be expelled from the University Rolls.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

5.<\/strong><\/td>\nJune 17, 2023<\/td>\nThe In- charge Registrar issued an office order expelling \u2018X\u2019 from the MNLU with immediate effect.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/strong><\/td>\nDate not mentioned<\/td>\nX\u2019 preferred an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor, but the latter found the appeal to be without merit.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/strong><\/td>\nDate not mentioned<\/td>\n\u2018X\u2019 was allowed to take end semester examination along with repeaters as a matter of grace.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/strong><\/td>\nDate not mentioned<\/td>\n\u2018X\u2019 being aggrieved by the decision of appeal basis the procedural irregularities and while \u2018Y\u2019 preferred an appeal on the ground that the proceeding before the Vice-Chancellor concluded without hearing her.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/strong><\/td>\nMarch 26, 2024<\/td>\nBoth filed writ petitions separately[2]<\/a> and both were therefore heard together before the High Court.[3]<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Issue before the Court<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. That whether a final year student\u2019s expulsion for an indefinite time, as recommended by the IC, will lead to \u2018academic death\u2019 of the student and was it in line with the principal of proportionality<\/strong>?<\/li>\n
  2. That whether the victims right to safety and dignity be balanced with accused right to education and reform?<\/li>\n
  3. To what extent the courts can intervene into the disciplinary actions of the educational institutions?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Legal Framework and Principles Involved<\/h2>\n