MP High Court Fines State ₹5 Lakh For Delaying Sexual Harassment FIR Against Yoga Institute's Former VC, Directs Him To Pay ₹35 Lakh Compensation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (July 15) imposed Rs 5 Lakh cost on the State for "inhumane and unsympathetic behaviour shown by the police officials" by delaying registration of workplace sexual harassment complaint by a woman who had accused the former Vice Chancellor of a national Yoga Institute of the offence.

Ruling in favour of the woman the court further directed the former VC to compensate the woman with Rs 35 Lakhs for loss of salary and reputation, agony and emotional distress.

In doing so the court held that woman was subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace and no steps were taken by the Institute in extending timely justice, adding that the Institute had "let its administration being controlled by a person, who was not even fit to be kept in service of any nature". 

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke in his order underscored the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) that mandated the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC when information discloses the commission of cognizable offence.

The court while criticising the police officers, emphasized: 

"This Court also holds that the police authorities are responsible for not taking action in time on the complaint made by the petitioner and had waited for three long years to register a crime, that too upon directions of the Apex Court, which had added to the agony of the petitioner, thus, had also made liable to be penalized...Thus, this Court finds that the inhumane and unsympathetic behaviour shown by the police officials makes them also liable for penalty. Accordingly, the State is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lac to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of order of pronouncement, which shall be recovered from erring officials from their own pocket".

It further imposed penalty of Rs 1 Lakh on the Institute where the woman was working at, for not taking appropriate action in timely extending justice to the petitioner at her workplace, which it said shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of order. 

Holding that the woman was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment the court further said:

"Respondent No.6 (VC) is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.35 Lakhs towards loss of salary for two years, pain & suffering, loss of reputation and emotion distress forthwith". 

The petitioner, appointed as a Yoga Instructor at a Physical Education institute, alleged that she was sexually harassed by the former Vice Chancellor (VC) (respondent no. 6). She claimed that in March 2019, she was inappropriately touched on her lower back by the then VC while she was heading for a class.

She claimed that due to his high position she did not file a complaint. In August 2019, the then VC allegedly summoned her over a leave-related complaint by the HOD and misused the situation to seek sexual favours.

In October 2019, she submitted a complaint to the Department of Sports, detailing instances of mental and physical harassment and a hostile work environment by the VC.  In response, the VC denied all allegations.

The former VC argued that the petitioner was irregular in attending the office, claiming that she had taken 1250 leaves in her 5 years of service. The matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), but its inquiry was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The ICC found the then VC guilty and observed, "that the conduct of the Charged Officer against his junior female employee was offensive to her dignity. Such behavior of the charged Officer amounts to unbecoming of the head of the institute and behavior not expected from a superior officer towards a young, very junior subordinate lady officer". 

The petitioner, however, informed the court that prior to the ICC's inquiry, she had submitted complaints to relevant authorities (respondents no 5 and 6), but no action followed. She alleged further harassment by other faculty members. The petitioner claimed that HOD acted in collusion with the then VC, making false remarks on her leave application.

It was also claimed that HOD filed a baseless complaint and issued a show cause notice. When the petitioner requested for original leave application, respondent no 6-9 allegedly denied the request to harass her. She then filed a complaint against HOD on August 31, 2019.

She further claimed that even though the petitioner was appointed as non-teaching staff, she was made to teach and serve as girls' hostel warden. When she requested to be relieved from warden duties, she was accused by the Registrar of leaving headquarters without permission. 

The petitioner argued that the VC constituted a six-member committee to target her based on a false complaint by an Assistant Professor of the Yoga Department. As Per the petitioner, the act of constituting the 6-member committee was retaliation by the VC for complaints she had made to the Women's Commission and Human Rights Commission. The petitioner said that under an RTI reply, it was revealed that no formal order for the committee's formation was issued, suggesting it lacked legitimacy under UGC Norms. 

After her multiple complaints yielded no result, the petitioner argued that she applied for leave on February 18, 2020 mentioning that she is under threat and if she continues her job, then respondent No.6/Charged Officer, misusing his power, can again harass her.

Subsequently, she filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC against respondents 6-10 (former VC, Registrar, HOD, Asst Professor and another), which was dismissed. Her revision petitions to the High Courts were also dismissed, but the Supreme Court allowed her SLP and ordered registration of an FIR under Sections 354-A(sexual harassment), 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC.

Despite all this, the petitioner claimed that no action was taken under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, nor was a safe work environment ensured. She contended this violated the 2013 Act. 

The court referred to Global Health Private Limited vs. Local Complaints Committee (2019) wherein a co-ordinate bench had imposed costs on the hospital for not having an Internal Complaints Committee, stating "That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admits of no debate". 

Noting that the decision of the ICC was not challenged by the respondents, the high court accepted the findings of the committee to "be true in toto". 

"It is also directed that if the petitioner, still wants to be shifted to  some other institute, respondent No.1 is directed to consider her prayer and post her to some other place of her choice," the court said. 

Case Title: X v Union of India (WP-5625-2020)

For Petitioner: Advocate Yogesh Chaturved

For State: Government Advocate M.S. Jadon

For Union: Deputy Solicitor General of India Praveen Kumar Newaskar

For Institute: Advocate Anil Sharma

For Respondents no 6 to 9: Advocate Siddharth Sharm

Click here to read the Order