"Expulsion From MNLU Will Be Like Death Sentence": Law Student Accused In Multiple Cases Of Sexual Harassment Tells Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in a plea filed by a final year law student of the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) challenging the decision of the varsity to expel him from the institution after he was found guilty by of 'repeated' sexual harassment of girls by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil closed the petition filed by the fifth year law student, who hails from a 'reputable' lawyers' family from Nagpur. He has challenged the June 21, 2024 order of the MNLU Vice Chancellor (VC) expelling him from the varsity based on sexual harassment findings of the ICC.

The petitioner, is allegedly a 'repeated' sexual harasser as he has been accused of sexual harassing multiple girls of the varsity within a span of two years.

In his plea, filed through senior advocate Mihir Desai, the petitioner student has contended that he has an excellent academic record. He argued that the entire enquiry process (in this second 'official' sexual harassment instance) was 'flawed, biased and violated the principles of natural justice.' He further contended that the alleged incident took place outside the university premises and an 'unofficial' gathering and thus the ICC or the university has no 'jurisdiction' to deal with the complaint.

Advocate Abhijeet Desai, argued for the law student in the second half of the hearing, who submitted, "The Court must show some sympathy to my client as he is in the fag end of his academic year and if expulsion order is set aside, my client is ready to only come for the exams. Please note the fact that such a penalty is nothing but a death sentence to my client and also be a secondary punishment for his family, His father is a practising lawyer, mother is a home maker... His sister is pursuing MBBS and she too will face some humiliation etc at her marriageable age... her marriage prospects will be affected.... My client will suffer social humiliation besides a severe setback on career front."

Appearing for the complainant girl, senior counsel Navroz Seervai assisted by advocate Pooja Thorat, highlighted the fact that the petitioner is a 'repeat offender' and has 'harassed multiple girls' within a span of two years. The senior advocate pointed out that even in 2022, the petitioner faced an enquiry by the ICC on another complaint filed by a different girl, who was also sexually harassed by the petitioner. The report of the first incident states that a young woman, who was harassed sexually by the petitioner, was 'so much traumatised' that she herself could not gather courage to lodge an official complaint against him. 

Seervai pointed out the findings of the ICC's report in May 2022, which stated that the offence was a 'higher degree' of sexual harassment. 

"The ICC in the first case recommended that under regulation 10(ii)(c) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the petitioner must be expelled from the institution and denied re-admisison and that he should give a public apology to the girl. However, the college took a lenient view and expelled him only from the hostel," the senior advocate argued.

Opposing this decision, in August 2022, a students bar council forwarded a representation signed by nearly 266 students to the VC of the university urging him to ensure that the petitioner is disallowed from entering the MNLU campus. 

In the second report, based on which VC decided to expel the petitioner, the ICC noted that the petitioner has not learnt any lesson from his previous 'misconduct' and has 'shown no remorse,' Seervai told the judges. The senior counsel further added that the classmates of the petitioner, himself have said that 'he is a dangerous man' and have sought his expulsion from the college.

"He has sexually harassed multiple girls within 2 years and thus should not be given the opportunity to graduate from the MNLU," Seervai submitted.

Advocate Dr Uday Warunjikar represented the MNLU. He submitted that he has 'clear instructions' that 'there can be no concession to the petitioner.'

"Offence is just less than a rape... If we consider his plea for sympathy etc it will send a wrong message to the society..." Warunjikar told the judges. 

The bench after hearing the detailed submissions, closed the matter for orders.