Expulsion For Indefinite Period Would Be Resulting In ‘Academic Death’: Bombay HC Grants Relief To Law Student Accused In Sexual Harassment Cases
The Bombay High Court has granted relief to a law student accused in some sexual harassment cases, saying that the expulsion order for an indefinite period will result in ‘academic death’.
The Court was deciding a writ petition filed by the accused student pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Honours) Course with the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Mumbai.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil observed, “We thus proceed on the premise that the punishment of expulsion of ‘X’ as imposed by the Vice Chancellor was justified in the light of the material available and especially the report of the ICC dated 20/05/2023. The punishment of expulsion therefore does not call for any interference. Having said that, in our view, an order of expulsion for an indefinite and unspecified period would be harsh resulting in ‘academic death’ of ‘X’. It would result in taking away the education and training undergone since his admission to the course in 2019-20.”
The Bench added that the accused student would never be able to complete his law course at the MNLU in future and consequence of such expulsion would operate perpetually, having a drastic effect on a student’s academic life.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai and Advocate Uday Warunjikar appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner/accused, law student of MNLU raised a challenge to the order passed by the Vice Chancellor (VC) on the appeal preferred by him challenging the communication issued by the in-charge Registrar expelling him from the University with immediate effect. He was alleged to have indulged in objectionable behaviour with a woman, who made a complaint of the incident to the Internal Complaint Committee, MNLU-ICC. The complaint was considered by the ICC and based on this, a report was submitted. The ICC recommended action against the petitioner on the ground that he was found guilty of sexual harassment for the second time. Despite the earlier punishment of expulsion from the hostel, no reform in his conduct was noticed. It was thus recommended that he be expelled from the University Rolls.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s name was directed to be struck off from the Rolls of students. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the VC but the same was found to be devoid of merit. However, noting that he was in the last year of his academic programme, a humanitarian approach was taken and he was given a chance to appear for the end Semester Examination at the completion of the academic session along with repeaters as a matter of grace. However, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the VC’s order and the victim also preferred a writ petition. Both the petitions were heard together and the VC was asked to consider the appeal afresh. The VC directed that the order of expulsion be implemented forthwith and therefore, the petitioner was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “As regards the option of remand, the same would require the Vice Chancellor to re-consider the matter that could thereafter result in a third round of litigation which in our view would not be in the academic interest of either ‘X’ or ‘Y’. It would only result in extending the agony, especially of ‘Y’, by requiring her to again undergo the ordeal of appearing before the Vice-Chancellor as an “aggrieved person.”
The Court noted that, it would rather be in the interest of the victim that her focus on academic pursuits continues unhindered rather than re-kindling bad memories.
“As regards ‘X’, he having not chosen to question the report of the ICC dated 20/05/2023 which forms the basis for the infliction of penalty, its report does not deserve to be interfered with. In his appeal statement, ‘X’ had indicated that he did not desire to pursue the matter any further”, it added.
Taking an overall view of the matter in the light of the fact that both ‘X’ (accused) and ‘Y’ (victim) being students are not subjected to any further distractions from their academic activities and this being the second round of litigation, the Court observed that it is not appropriate to again engage ‘Y’ and ‘X’, in that order, to another round of litigation.
“It would be in the larger interest of both that the entire matter is given a quietus so that they can focus on positive aspects of their careers. In that view of the matter, we have undertaken to consider the appropriate course that could be followed, which in our view would meet the ends of justice, viewed from the perspective of ‘Y’ and ‘X’”, it further noted.
The Court remarked that the consequences flowing from an order of expulsion for an indefinite and unspecified period are drastic and harsh.
“Thus, while maintaining the punishment of expulsion, the duration for which it ought to operate in the present case requires consideration. Having found that the expulsion of ‘X’ for an undefined period would be harsh, in ordinary course the matter ought to be remitted to the disciplinary authority to specify the period of expulsion”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, directed that the expulsion order shall operate till the end of academic year 2024-25 and additionally, the petitioner shall render community service under the guidance of VC till the said period.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the expulsion order and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- X v. Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai (MNLU) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:15904-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, Advocates Abhijit Desai, Karan Gajra, Mohini Rehpade, Daksha Punghera, Vijay Singh, Sachita Sontakke, Digvijay Kachare, and Abhishek Ingale.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, Advocates Uday Warunjikar, Jenish Jain, Dattaram Bile, Aditya Kharkar, Gulnar Mistry, Pooja Thorat, Amar Bodake, Trisha Choudhary, and M.V. Thorat.
