Plea Alleges Prejudiced Investigation Into Sexual Harassment Complaints Against College Professor: Kerala High Court Issues Notice

The Kerala High Court has recently issued notice to the concerned authorities at the Sree Narayana Guru College in a petition alleging biased investigation into sexual harassment allegations levelled by several students against a professor.

Through an interim order, Justice Amit Rawal also stayed the report of the Internal Compliance Committee constituted to investigate the allegations, to the extent that it accused the petitioner of conspiracy.

The alleged incident came to light after a group of students confided in the petitioner about the inappropriate sexual behaviour exhibited by Abhilash T, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the college.

The petitioner Dr. Swapna Gopinath, a former employee of the said College was invited to the college to talk on gender sensitization when this was disclosed to her. 

It was also brought to her notice that their numerous complaints to the Principal about the same had allegedly fallen on deaf ears.

The petitioner contended that this inaction could be the aftermath of the Principal's close association with the accused professor. The plea filed by Advocates Raghul Sudheesh, K.J. Glaxon, J. Lakshmi and Xavier Thomas V.T. also accused the Principal of attempting to compel the students towards withdrawing the complaint.  

Later on, over 75 students wrote to the Principal seeking the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to conduct a fair investigation after transferring the accused teacher to avoid further harassment at the college.

When no action was taken on the same, the students approached the Governor of Kerala, who is also the Chancellor of the University to which the college is affiliated. Their complaint was immediately forwarded to the State Police Chief for expedite action. 

Afterwards, the Principal constituted an ICC, but this was headed by his 'close associates' who also shared close acquaintance with the accused professor, according to the petitioner. 

Aggrieved by the same, the students preferred a representation before the Chairperson of ICC to constitute a committee in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015.

Accordingly, a lawyer was appointed as the Presiding Officer of ICC. The Presiding Officer soon concluded after a preliminary enquiry that the complaints were prime facie genuine, and the abuser was guilty of the offences alleged against him.

The Presiding Officer was however shortly displaced by another lawyer who submitted a report in favour of the accused, purportedly flouting the mandate of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The report submitted by the second lawyer even went to the extent of stating so:

"After hearing the entire conversation, the ICC felt that the above-mentioned gender sensitization session was a preplanned endeavour made by the faculties to mobilize the students to file the complaint against Abhilash T."

Soon, the report accused the petitioner and four other faculty members of persuading the students to file a false sexual harassment complaint against the accused. 

The plea also stated that disciplinary action was initiated against members of the faculty who, according to the Principal, backed the students in this endeavour. 

In the memos issued to these faculties, several baseless allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as per the plea. It also suggested that the Principal has been spreading fabricated stories of how the petitioner promotes alcohol and narcotic use. 

Challenging the ill-motivated efforts of the Principal, the petitioner approached the Court. It was alleged that the Committee had made a completely wrong observation about the petitioner without even giving her a chance to explain her side of the events or calling for a hearing. 

Reliance was placed on LS Sibu vs. Air India Limited & Ors. to point out that every Internal Committee constituted under the Act necessarily has to follow principles of natural justice while conducting an enquiry.

The rules framed under the Act also indicate that the committee should follow the principles of natural justice i.e., when prejudicial statements are made, the same shall not be used against any person without giving him an opportunity to correct and contradict.

However, in this case, it was contended the ICC report made observations about the petitioner without giving her an opportunity to be heard and even though no notice has been received so far, observations are required to be expunged or declared obiter.

As such, the petitioner asserted that such observations were a blatant violation of the administrative law that none should be condemned unheard.

"No doubt so far no notice has been received but observations are required to be expunged or declared obiter. Many other sitting faculty members have already been  served with the notices."

Further, Section 13 read with Section 11 of the Act indicates the enquiry to be concluded under Section 13 is not a preliminary enquiry, but a full-fledged fact-finding enquiry.

It was also pointed out that the ICC report was challenged by six students before the High Court. The Court had temporarily stayed the proceedings of the committee against the petitioner students in those cases.

As such, the Court stayed the proceedings against the petitioner that may arise out of the ICC report, issued notice to the respondent college authorities and ordered that the matter be tagged with the petitions moved by the students.

Case Title: Dr. Swapna Gopinath v The Principal, Sree Narayana Guru College & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download The Interim Order