Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by a yoga instructor who was sexually harassed by the Vice Chancellor (‘VC’) of Laxmi Bai National Institute of Physical Education (‘LNIPE’), Gwalior, seeking directions to provide a safe and fearless environment at her workplace, the Single Judge Bench of Milind Ramesh Phadke, J., allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner had been sexually harassed. The authorities failed to extend timely justice to the petitioner, which deprived her of valuable time, energy, and reputation. Accordingly, the Court directed the VC, LNIPE, and the police officials to compensate the petitioner.
Background
The petitioner, a yoga instructor, had been working at LNIPE since 2015. In 2019, she was going to take a Yoga class with the students when the VC stopped her and touched her lower back. Startled by such behaviour, the petitioner ran away, but did not make any complaint due to the position of the VC. Once again, the VC called the petitioner to his office and informed her that respondent 8, Head of Department (‘HOD’), had complained against her regarding non-completion of the formalities to take leave and asked her for sexual favours to suppress the said complaint.
Aggrieved, the petitioner complained to the Department of Sports. The Department sought a response from the VC, which he denied. Thereafter, the said complaint was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) constituted in LNIPE, but the inquiry could not be completed due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
Allegedly, the HOD, acting as an accomplice of the VC, made a false remark on the petitioner’s leave application and a false complaint against her before respondent 10, Assistant Professor of the Yoga Department. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a complaint against the HOD. The HOD also contended that the petitioner, who was appointed as a non-teaching staff, was given teaching duty and the additional duty of warden of girls’ hostel by getting favours from and bribing the VC. Therefore, the petitioner made a written request to relieve her from the duty of warden. However, respondent 7 informed her that the Assistant Professor had complained about the petitioner’s misbehaviour with senior staff.
The complaint made by the Assistant Professor was forwarded to a Six-Member Committee formed by the VC. The petitioner filed an RTI seeking information about the aforesaid Committee, but was informed that no order was issued from the Office of the VC, which abjectly implied that the Committee so formulated was not under the UGC Guidelines.
Thereafter, the petitioner made several complaints to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the P.M. Office, and the C.M. Helpline, but no action thereupon was taken. The petitioner submitted her leave application, mentioning that she was under threat and if she continued her job, then the VC would misuse his power to harass her. Therefore, she will join the institute after her complaints were addressed; however, no action was taken by respondent 7.
Aggrieved yet again, the petitioner filed a private complaint/application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), before the Trial Court to lodge an FIR against respondents 6 to 10. Her complaint was dismissed with a liberty to pursue her case under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC before the competent Court. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before this Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order, and her petition was allowed with directions to the police to register a crime. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against respondents 6 to 10 under Sections 354-A, 509, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860.
In 2020, a fresh Committee was constituted, which conducted a detailed inquiry and concluded that the petitioner’s allegations were proven. However, no action was taken under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’), and the petitioner was not provided a safe working environment.
Hence, the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court noted that the Committee concluded that the petitioner’s allegations stood proved. These observations and conclusions were not challenged by the VC, respondents 7 to 10, or LNIPE. Thus, the Court stated that it was not required to go into further details regarding the conclusions and findings arrived at by the Committee, and they were accepted to be true in toto. The Court also noted that the VC could not bring to the notice of the Court any fact which could compel the Court to take a contrary view to the observations and the findings given by the Committee.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace and no steps were taken by LNIPE to extend timely justice to her, which deprived her of valuable time, energy, and reputation.
“LNIPE let its administration be controlled by a person who was not fit to be kept in service of any nature.”
The Court further held that the unwelcome sexual harassment that the petitioner was subjected to at her workplace was covered within the meaning of Section 2(n) and Section 3(2) of the POSH Act.
Accordingly, the Court directed the VC to pay compensation to the petitioner of Rs 35 Lakhs towards loss of salary for two years, pain and suffering, loss of reputation, and emotional distress forthwith. The Court also imposed a penalty of Rs 1 Lakh on LNIPE for not taking appropriate action, which shall be paid within four weeks.
The Court further held that the police authorities were responsible for not acting in time on the complaint made by the petitioner and waited for three long years to register a crime, that too after directions of the Supreme Court, which added to the agony of the petitioner. When a report of a cognizable offence was made by the petitioner, the police officials were required to register the crime, but they failed to do so. In this regard, the Court referred to Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. Thus, the Court found that the inhumane and unsympathetic behaviour shown by the police officials made them liable for a penalty.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner within four weeks, which shall be recovered from the erring officers.
Lastly, the Court directed that if the petitioner still wanted to be posted to some other institute, the Union shall consider her prayer and post her to some other place of her choice.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
[X v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 5625 of 2020, decided on 15-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Yogesh Chaturvedi
For the respondent: Government Advocate M.S. Jadon, Dy. Solicitor General of India Praveen Kumar Newaskar, Anil Sharma, and Siddharth Sharma
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
