MADURAI: A PhD research scholar who was mentally, emotionally and sexually harassed by her research guide six years ago, finally received justice as the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently upheld the decision made by the university to discharge the professor from service on compulsory retirement and further ordered the professor to pay Rs 50,000 cost to the scholar.
In a significant step towards ensuring the protection of identity of victims in sexual harassment cases, the court also urged for formulation of standard operating procedures and practice directions by the civil and criminal rules committees of the high court to conceal not just the victim's name, but the names of the perpetrator and the educational institution as well, from case records in the present case and similar cases in future.
"Screening of identity is required as there could always be a possibility of the victim being exploited later if the Court were to hold that the allegations were baseless, and the alleged perpetrator had been named, he or she would suffer and it would be a torturous ordeal to erase the stigma which would have attached to him or her in view of the allegations," the court observed.
Only one original document should contain the full identity details and it should be retained by the Registry in a sealed cover, it added, and directed the Registry to place the suggestion before the chief justice of the high court.
A bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Poornima passed the order on an appeal filed by the research scholar in 2020, against a decision made by a single judge of the court allowing a petition filed by the professor to set aside the punishment imposed on him by the varsity.
The judges observed that the single judge had grossly failed to understand the sensitivity of the entire issue. "The court should keep in mind the fact that the victim had already been harassed. Putting her to further harassment, by going through the rigours of an adversarial trial process during the inquiry would defeat the purposes of the UGC regulations and to a larger extent the act and would be extremely unjust," the judges added.
They also wondered the meaning behind the single judge's observation that only 50% of the charges have been proved. "We are not able to understand that observation. Even if there is a slight indication or even if there is intention to commit sexual or mental or emotional harassment and the said allegation is made out, the perpetrator must be punished," the judges held.
They further noted that there was no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) during the inquiry and appreciated the committee for its efforts in protecting the victim's dignity. Holding that more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to the professor and he had deliberately chosen not to avail them, the judges upheld the Registrar's decision and directed them to act on it within five working days.
In order to set an example that no form of harassment would be tolerated in any educational institution in this country, the judges further imposed Rs 50,000 cost on the professor, directing him to pay the amount to the victim within a month. According to the victim's complaint, the professor, besides seeking sexual favours, had indulged in other unwelcome actions such as frequently inviting her to dinners or to accompany him in his car, touching her hands in the guise of palmistry, making comments on her appearance like praising her complexion, nose ring, etc, threatening to cancel her PhD registration, demanding bribe, offering gifts, among others.