The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the expulsion of a student from Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Mumbai who was found to have sexually harassed a fellow student at a social event.
However, the Court reduced the expulsion period to one year, effective until the end of the 2024-25 academic year.
A Bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil had reserved its orders on August 29, following a detailed hearing on the student's plea challenging the June 21 expulsion order issued by the Vice-Chancellor of MNLU Mumbai.
During the one-year expulsion, the student is required to undertake community service under the supervision of the Vice-Chancellor. The Court indicated that his results for the ninth and tenth semesters will only be released along with those of regular students at the conclusion of the 2024-25 academic year.
“In our view, restricting the punishment of expulsion for one academic year coupled with a further direction to undertake community services (as prescribed by Clause 10(2) (d) of University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015) would meet the ends of justice,” the Court said.
It further clarified that while the expulsion was necessary, it was crucial to define its duration to avoid prolonged suffering for both the student in question and the complainant.
The judges also expressed concern that remanding the matter back to the Vice-Chancellor could result in further allegations and a prolonged ordeal for the complainant, saying,
“...the same would thereafter result in a third round of litigation which in our view would not be in the academic interest of either ‘X’ (expelled student) or ‘Y’ (complainant). 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".”
Importantly, the Court mandated that ‘X’ must not interact with ‘Y’ during his community service. Additionally, it urged the Vice-Chancellor to implement recommendations from the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), including ensuring that University events do not serve alcohol and that appropriate oversight is maintained to prevent misconduct.
The case arose from allegations of “repeated” sexual harassment by ‘X’ against multiple female students over a two-year period. The ICC found him guilty in two inquiries, ultimately leading to his expulsion. The ICC's report, dated May 20, 2023, emphasised the need for vigilance during University events, particularly concerning the management of venues where alcohol is served.
During proceedings before the High Court, counsel for ‘X’ argued that the inquiry process was flawed and biased, highlighting that the incidents occurred off-campus. He contended that the expulsion would have devastating effects on the student's future, pleading for consideration of his academic record.
Counsel for one of the complainants underscored the gravity of the allegations, stating that the petitioner’s history of misconduct warranted expulsion.
Counsel for MNLU Mumbai reinforced the University's position, arguing that leniency would send a dangerous message regarding the seriousness of sexual harassment.
Ultimately, the Court while reducing the period of expulsion,
“This approach may not be construed as an outcome of an exercise in equity but rather as an application of the doctrine of proportionality.” The judges emphasized that avoiding further remand and additional hearings was critical to preventing further emotional distress for ‘Y’."
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai with Advocates Abhijit Desai, Karan Gajra, Mohini Rehpade, Daksha Punghera, Vijay Singh, Sachita Sontakke, Digvijay Kachare and Abhishek Ingale, instructed by Desai Legal, appeared for the student.
Advocates Uday Warunjikar, Jenish Jain, Dattaram Bile and Aditya Kharkar appeared for MNLU Mumbai.
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai with Advocate Gulnar Mistry, Pooja Thorat, Amar Bodake and Trisha Choudhary, instructed by Advocate MV Thorat, appeared for the complainant.
[Read Order]