'Shocking To The Conscience': Madras HC Orders Registration Of FIR Against Headmaster For Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Teachers

"It is shocking to the conscience of this Court that in educational institutions such occurrences are frequently happening and in the event of any inaction, the persons who are all responsible will make an attempt to escape from the clutches of law. Thus, in such circumstance, it is the constitutional duty of the High Court to go to any extent and ensure complete justice to be provided to the parties concerned", the court observed.

The Court perused the letters sent by respondent teachers to the Competent educational authorities which revealed that they were subjected to mental harassment. Justice S.M Subramaniam inferred that there is no conducive atmosphere in the school to continue their services, as a result of which their deputation was cancelled by the Authority. According to the respondents, there were subjected to much difficulties owing to the sexual harassment and frequent phone calls by the petitioner Headmaster.

The court stated that it was not in a position to form an opinion at this stage regarding the allegations made. However, the court underscored that it cannot tolerate such activities of the Headmaster in an educational institution and actions are certainly warranted.

Apart from this, the court also directed the District Educational Officer to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee under Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act. The court remarked that an enquiry can be parallelly conducted in respect of sexual harassment in the workplace. The court stated that there is no bar for the continuance of enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee even during the pendency of the criminal case under other penal laws.

Section 28 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Act, 2013, categorically provides "The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." Therefore, registration of an FIR is not a bar for constituting an Internal Complaints Committee, under Section 4 of the Act.

Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the deputation made for the benefit of the school was cancelled. The same pattern has occurred in the past as well which made the petitioner to file the writ petition before High Court.

On the other hand, Mr Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader, made a submission that there are serious allegations of sexual harassment against the writ petitioner and frequent complaints are received by the Educational Authorities.

Mr M.Venkatesh, the counsel appearing for the teachers, made a submission that there are several other allegations of sexual harassment against the writ petitioner and such complaints are frequently made. 

The court questioned the basis on which respondent teachers were impleaded in the petition as it was their deputation that was cancelled in the impugned order. The same would not affect the school and the only grievance of the school would be that they may request the Department to depute the other teachers to run the school administration peacefully.

"Instead of making a request to the Educational Authorities to fill up the posts, the petitioner has gone to the extent of impleading the women teachers in the writ petition, who have given complaints of sexual harassment against the writ petitioner.", the court remarked.