Justice Vivek Jain of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of Professor Rakesh Singh of Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU) in a MP High Court sexual harassment case, holding that the University had no authority to inquire into a private relationship which began years before the student’s admission to the institution.
The Court noted that the relationship between Professor Rakesh Singh and the complainant commenced in 2013, whereas the complainant enrolled as a research scholar at IGNTU only in 2021. It was further observed that the complainant was a 30-year-old married woman at the time.
Justice Vivek Jain observed that
University had no business to interfere in a consensual relationship
that existed before the complainant became a student. The Court remarked that the university’s action was beyond its jurisdiction and could not be sustained in law.
Private Relationship Beyond University Jurisdiction
The petitioner, Professor Rakesh Singh, headed the Department of History at IGNTU. Following a complaint by a research scholar alleging sexual exploitation and pregnancy, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducted an inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Based on the ICC report, which found the complaint substantiated, the Executive Council of IGNTU terminated Singh’s services. Singh challenged the termination order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The professor argued that the ICC was illegally constituted and that many of its members had not participated in the proceedings. He also contended that the POSH Act was not applicable as the alleged sexual relationship occurred before the complainant became a student.
Court Criticises ICC Report, Terms It “Bogus and Farcical”
After examining the record, the High Court held that the ICC was illegally constituted under UGC Regulations, since one member was on maternity leave and another abstained due to allegations of bias. The Court also found that several members’ signatures were obtained on blank sheets, making the report “a totally farce and bogus document”.
The bench further noted that the ICC failed to consider the vital fact that the relationship had begun long before the complainant’s admission. The Court emphasised that at best, the issue amounted to an extramarital relationship and not sexual harassment within the meaning of the POSH Act.
Court on Other Allegations
Regarding the charge that the professor avoided arrest in a related criminal case, the Court observed that such conduct could not be treated as misconduct as he was already under suspension. The Court also held that his act of seeking legal remedies before the High Court was his legitimate right and could not attract disciplinary action.
On allegations of social media criticism against the University, the Court found no evidence of misconduct, observing that merely expressing dissent does not constitute a disciplinary violation.
However, the bench directed the University to re-examine the allegation of question paper leakage, considering the professor’s defence that sharing important questions before exams was an accepted academic practice at IGNTU.
Reinstatement Ordered
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, therefore, set aside the termination order and directed the University to reinstate Professor Rakesh Singh immediately. The Court clarified that he would continue under suspension pending reconsideration of the charge related to the question paper leakage.
“Let the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith and would remain under suspension till a fresh order is passed as to charge No.5, as he was under suspension till the date of the earlier dismissal order,”
the Court directed.
The judgment thus brings substantial relief to Professor Rakesh Singh in the MP High Court sexual harassment case, with the Court recognising that the University’s action was legally unsustainable and procedurally flawed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Rakesh Singh v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University
- Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
- Bench: Justice Vivek Jain
- Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay
- Respondent’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Ajay Pawar with Advocate Rahul Kumar Pathak
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…