Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a student of Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), was expelled after an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found him guilty of sexual harassment for the second time. The ICC recommended expulsion, and the in-charge Registrar issued an expulsion order on 17 June 2023. The petitioner appealed to the Vice Chancellor, who initially rejected the appeal but allowed him to appear for exams on humanitarian grounds. Both the petitioner and the complainant challenged that order. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that the complainant be heard. On remand, the petitioner submitted an appeal statement stating he did not wish to raise further arguments. The Vice Chancellor, after hearing both parties, confirmed the expulsion. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the expulsion on grounds of procedural unfairness and disproportionate punishment. The court examined the UGC Regulations 2015, particularly clauses on show cause notice, cross-examination, and proportionality. It held that while the ICC proceedings lacked certain procedural safeguards, the appeal process cured those defects. The court also found that the punishment of expulsion was proportionate given the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner's lack of reform. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Sexual Harassment - Procedural Fairness - Show Cause Notice - UGC Regulations 2015, Clause 8(6) - The court considered whether the failure to issue a show cause notice before expulsion vitiated the punishment. Held that the absence of a show cause notice caused prejudice and violated principles of natural justice, but the subsequent appeal process cured the defect as the petitioner was heard and given an opportunity to present his case (Paras 7-10, 15-20).
B) Sexual Harassment - Proportionality of Punishment - Expulsion - UGC Regulations 2015, Clause 10(2) - The court examined whether expulsion was disproportionate and whether reformative punishment could be imposed. Held that the punishment of expulsion was not disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's repeated misconduct, and that the Vice Chancellor had considered the possibility of reform but found no change in conduct (Paras 8, 12-14, 21-25).
C) Sexual Harassment - Cross-Examination - Right to Fair Hearing - UGC Regulations 2015, Clause 8 - The court addressed the petitioner's claim that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Held that the ICC proceedings did not provide for cross-examination, but the appeal process before the Vice Chancellor, where both parties were heard, ensured overall fairness (Paras 7, 11, 18-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the expulsion of a student for sexual harassment was procedurally fair and proportionate under the UGC (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of expulsion dated 21/06/2024 passed by the Vice Chancellor. The court held that the procedural defects in the ICC proceedings were cured by the appeal process where the petitioner was heard. The punishment of expulsion was found to be proportionate and not warranting interference under Article 226.
Law Points
- Procedural fairness
- proportionality of punishment
- show cause notice requirement
- cross-examination right
- reformative punishment
- UGC Regulations 2015
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 100
Writ Petition (Lodging) No.21030 of 2024
A.S. Chandurkar, Rajesh S. Patil
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Desai, Mr. Karan Gajra, Ms. Mohini Rehpade, Mrs. Daksha Punghera, Mr. Vijay singh with Ms. Sachita Sontakke, Mr. Digvijay Kachare, Mr. Abhishek Ingale instructed by Desai Legal for petitioner; Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Jenish Jain, Mr. Dattaram Bile, Mr. Aditya Kharkar for respondent nos. 1 to 3; Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Ms. Pooja Thorat, Mr. Amar Bodake, Ms. Trisha Choudhary, instructed by M.V. Thorat for respondent no.4
Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai (MNLU) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of expulsion passed by the Vice Chancellor of Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, based on the recommendation of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) finding the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the expulsion order and reinstatement as a student, or alternatively, a lesser punishment.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was expelled from the university after being found guilty of sexual harassment for the second time. He challenged the expulsion on grounds of procedural irregularities and disproportionate punishment.
Previous Decisions
The ICC submitted a report on 20/05/2023 recommending expulsion. The in-charge Registrar expelled the petitioner on 17/06/2023. The Vice Chancellor initially rejected the appeal on 30/08/2023 but allowed him to appear for exams. The High Court remanded the matter on 26/03/2024 for fresh consideration after hearing the complainant. On remand, the Vice Chancellor confirmed the expulsion on 21/06/2024.
Issues
Whether the failure to issue a show cause notice before expulsion violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the UGC Regulations 2015.
Whether the punishment of expulsion was disproportionate and whether a reformative punishment should have been imposed instead.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that no show cause notice was issued before expulsion, violating Clause 8(6) of UGC Regulations 2015, and that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses.
Petitioner argued that the punishment of expulsion was grossly disproportionate and that reformative measures like community service should have been considered under Clause 10(2) of the Regulations.
Respondent university argued that the ICC followed due process and that the appeal process before the Vice Chancellor cured any procedural defects. They contended that the punishment was proportionate given the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's repeated misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the ICC proceedings lacked certain procedural safeguards like a show cause notice and cross-examination, the appeal process before the Vice Chancellor, where both parties were heard, cured those defects. The punishment of expulsion was proportionate given the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner's lack of reform despite a previous lesser punishment. The court declined to substitute its own view on punishment under Article 226.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, a student pursuing B.A.LL.B. (Honours) Course with the Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the order dated 21/06/2024 passed by the Vice Chancellor on the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the communication dated 17/06/2023 issued by the in-charge Registrar expelling him from the University with immediate effect.
The ICC recommended action against ‘X’ 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.
The Vice Chancellor considered the appeal afresh. ‘X’ and ‘Y’ were heard on 21/05/2024. After considering the submissions made on behalf of ‘X’ and ‘Y’, it was held that the report as submitted by the ICC did not call for any interference.
Procedural History
The petitioner was expelled on 17/06/2023 based on ICC recommendation. He appealed to the Vice Chancellor, who rejected the appeal on 30/08/2023 but allowed him to appear for exams. The petitioner filed WP(L) No.31150/2023, and the complainant filed WP(L) No.9713/2024. The High Court, by common judgment dated 26/03/2024, remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the complainant. On remand, the Vice Chancellor confirmed the expulsion on 21/06/2024. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015: Clause 4(1)(c), Clause 8, Clause 8(6), Clause 10(2)
- Working Rules for Internal Complaints Committee of MNLU, Mumbai: Rule 31, Rule 40
- Constitution of India: Article 226
