On October 27, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by two associate professors of Kalindi College, Delhi University, challenging the constitution of a fresh committee to conduct a sexual harassment inquiry.
On October 27, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by two associate professors of Kalindi College, Delhi University, against the constitution of a fresh Internal Committee to enquire into their sexual harassment complaint. The Court held that their apprehensions of bias were not supported by material establishing a real likelihood of bias.
The sexual harassment complaint dates back to 7th July 2025, when the two professors had submitted a joint complaint to the principal alleging harassment and intimidation, as well as derogatory and sexually coloured remarks by four faculty members. The incidents stated included alleged remarks and exchanges in the staff association’s WhatsApp group and at a meeting held on 3rd July 2025.
The committee constituted following the complaint had concluded that ‘the remarks were not sexual in nature’. The report of the committee, following objections, was dismissed by the Vice Chancellor who directed the college to constitute a new committee in accordance with the statutory provisions.
However, this new committee was once again challenged by the complainants on grounds of flaws, having been constituted by the college principal, whose administrative decision had been questioned in the proceedings. They further objected to the inclusion of a faculty member who had attended the July 3rd meeting and of a senior personal assistant to the Principal, arguing that this raised concerns regarding the independence of the committee. The petition was opposed by Delhi University and college authorities.
Delhi HC, in its judgement, stated that mere apprehensions of bias cannot be grounds to justify the dissolution of an internal committee. In response to the involvement of the Principal, Justice Sharma held that she was not a respondent to the original complaint. Further, with reference to a faculty member, the court observed, “Mere attendance at its meeting cannot render a faculty member a person ‘directly or indirectly connected with, involved in, or interested in the subject matter of the complaint’.” Stating that the UGC Regulations require the nomination of two non-teaching employees to the committee, the court rejected the objection to the inclusion of a senior personal assistant.
However, noting that the complaint had remained pending for more than 15 months, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the newly constituted committee in Kalindi College to “endeavour” to complete the inquiry within 90 days and added that the inquiry should be conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Image Source: Getty Images
Sahaj J
[email protected]
