MP High Court Calls Out "High-Handedness" Of State In Not Probing Sexual Harassment Complaint Against VC Of Jabalpur-Based Varsity

Justice Vishal Mishra in his order observed,

“It is high-handedness on the part of the respondents-authorities in not getting the matter investigated properly despite the fact that there was serious complaint made by a female employee regarding sexual harassment at work place against the highest officer of the University i.e. Vice Chancellor of RDVV. The manner in which the investigation has been carried out carves out suspicion on the officials who have carried out the investigation. This gives an impression that they are hand in gloves with the officers of RDVV.”

A petition was filed seeking directions to Respondent no. 1/State and Respondent No. 2/Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya (RDVV) Jabalpur to initiate the inquiry under the POSH Act on the complaint of sexual harassment lodged by the petitioner against the Vice Chancellor of Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur. It was alleged in the petition that the entire incident had been recorded on the CCTV camera installed in the office of the accused.

The Court had earlier directed the respondents to preserve the CCTV footage of the office of the accused. However, in its order dated May 8, the Court opined that it appeared as if a deliberate attempt had been made to destroy the evidence. Thus, the Court directed the respondent No. 4 - Collector (Woman and Child Development), Jabalpur to send a Forensic/Technical Expert for examination of the CCTV camera and the DVR and to assess as to when the said CCTV camera was installed, up to which date the CCTV camera was functional, on which date it was not functional and the reason for non-functionality of the CCTV camera on the date of incident.

The Court also directed the Registrar of RDVV to submit an affidavit as to why the orders of the Court were not complied and CCTV footage was not preserved. The Court also sought clarification as to which date the said CCTV camera was functional and steps taken by them to rectify the fault of the CCTV camera and to make it functional.

On May 15, the Court was informed that a committee comprising of six members by the Collector Jabalpur has been formed to look into the matter and to furnish the compliance report.

In its order dated May 19, the Court directed the Collector, District Jabalpur to file an affidavit along with documents/statements of the witnesses recorded by the committee on the dates of their visit to the RDVV, Jabalpur.

On May 20, an affidavit was produced by the Collector, Jabalpur in which it was pointed out that he himself was not satisfied with the report submitted by the Committee and the manner in which the Committee had conducted the investigation in pursuance to the directions given by the Court.

On perusal of the report, the Court noted that complete material was not supplied to the Committee to enable it to investigate the matter properly. Further, no efforts were made to collect the CCTV footage of the room wherein the incident took place being a material piece of evidence. It was informed that the CCTV camera is not functioning, therefore, the footage could not be collected.

“The evaluation report which is produced by the Committee was not found to be satisfactory by the Collector District Jabalpur himself. He has categorically stated that he is not satisfied with the report of the Committee.”, the Court noted.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused has high political connections and is very influential, therefore, it was possible that the inquiry reports submitted were managed reports. Therefore, the counsel made a request to hand over the investigation to an external agency to ensure fair and impartial investigation and justice to the victim.

Considering the circumstances, the Court noted that investigation was carried on twice by the authorities but were not found to be proper, thus, creating suspicion on the on the working of the Committees.

Thus, the Court found it appropriate to hand over the matter to a third and independent agency to investigate.

“Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) consisting of three senior IPS officers, out of them one should necessarily be a woman officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The officers should not be from District Jabalpur. The SIT to be necessarily constituted within 3 days and to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police. The SIT to investigate into the matter and submit the report for perusal of this Court on or before the next date of hearing.”, the Court said.

The matter is listed for further hearing on June 16.

Case Title: Victim X Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 2528 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Alok Vagrecha

Counsel for Respondent/State: Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly

Counsel for Respondent No. 2/University: Advocate Anvesh Shrivastava