Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition seeking an impartial investigation alleging sexual harassment at the workplace by invoking the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, by a female employee of Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur (RDVV) against the Vice Chancellor (VC) of the university, a single-judge bench of Vishal Mishra, J., took a strong stance against “high-handedness on the part of the respondents-authorities” and directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for investigation.
The instant matter arose from a complaint made by petitioner alleging sexual harassment at the workplace by the VC of the RDVV. Previously, the State Government had referred the complaint to a duly constituted committee. However, the investigation and the committee’s final report were found to be grossly inadequate. Crucially, the committee failed to gather essential evidence, including CCTV footage from the alleged incident room. Although an earlier undertaking was given by RDVV’s counsel on 07-02-2025 that the footage would be preserved, the footage was later stated to be unavailable due to non-functioning cameras.
The Court noted that these inconsistencies raised serious concerns. The Court observed that the “the manner in which the investigation has been carried out carves out suspicion on the officials who have carried out the investigation,” and noted a possibility that the authorities were “hand in gloves with the officers of RDVV.”
Upon the Court’s direction, the District Collector of Jabalpur was tasked with looking into the matter. However, he submitted an affidavit expressing dissatisfaction with the committee’s work. Despite the formation of a six-member inquiry committee and the submission of its report in a sealed cover, the Collector “has categorically stated that he is not satisfied with the report of the Committee.”
The petitioner argued that the accused VC is highly influential and politically connected, which cast doubt on the neutrality of the committees. Citing two prior unsatisfactory reports, it was submitted that an independent investigation was essential for justice. On the other hands, respondents (State and RDVV) submitted that they had no objection to the investigation being handed over to an external agency.
The Court took serious note of procedural lapses, such as essential evidence like CCTV footage is not preserved despite prior assurances, the committee relied merely on the statement that the CCTV camera is non-functional without further verification and the Collector’s affidavit, expressing dissatisfaction, reinforced that the inquiry was neither credible nor comprehensive.
Citing State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, and Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 9 SCC 795, the Court emphasised that although transfer of investigation is an extraordinary measure, it is warranted when “necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations” and to ensure “discovery of truth.”
The Court stated that “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 workplace against the highest officer of the University.”
Given the serious procedural lapses and the Collector’s lack of confidence in the internal inquiry, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising three senior IPS officers, including one woman officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
The Court further directed that the officers must not be from District Jabalpur, the SIT is to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, the SIT must be constituted within three days of the order and is required to submit its investigation report before the next date of hearing and all documentation, including the prior sealed reports, is to be handed over to the SIT within three days.
[Victim X v. State of M.P., WP No. 2528 of 2025, Decided on 20-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Alok Vagrecha, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondents/State
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/RDVV
