Whether virtual interactions between a teacher and students, such as those over WhatsApp and Facebook, fall within the definition of "workplace" under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("POSH Act") was one of the issues which was recently decided by the Delhi High Court in the case titled Dr. Amit Kumar Vs. University of Delhi.1
In the case, four complaints alleging sexual harassment were received against Dr. Amit who was Assistant Professor of Political Science in Bharti College, University of Delhi. Of these, three complaints were from the students of College whereas the fourth complaint was received from alumnus of College who was a former student of Dr. Amit. These complaints pertained to sending several obscene and objectionable messages on Facebook Messenger, the sexual innuendoes/advances of Dr. Amit by way of Facebook Messenger chats and WhatsApp chats sent by Dr. Amit to the complainants.
The four complaints were forwarded to the Internal Committee ("IC") constituted under the POSH Act, to conduct inquiry under POSH Act and UGC Regulations. The IC investigated the complaints and after finding a prima facie case, conducted an inquiry. The IC concluded that Dr. Amit's actions constituted sexual harassment and recommended his compulsory retirement and a payment of Rs. 10,000 to each complainant for their mental pain and suffering. Thereafter, Dr. Amit was issued letter by the Governing Body of the College confirming his compulsory retirement on account of sexual harassment allegations, which was challenged by Dr. Amit by filing a writ petition before Delhi High Court.
It was contended on behalf of Dr. Amit that the chats/exchanged conversations took place on social media on WhatsApp and Facebook were of a personal nature where neither Dr. Amit nor the complainants were at a 'workplace' as defined under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act, no case of sexual harassment against him could have been made out.
Dr. Amit further stated that the delay in filing complaints should not been condoned by IC. Further, not only was the complainants' evidence done in his absence, but he was never even provided with the names of the complainants' witnesses. He also stated that procedure of making the Petitioner conduct the complainants' through a written questionnaire was unjust.
The Court observed that the IC had considered Dr. Amit's objection of the sexual harassment as alleged, not having occurred in 'workplace', and held that since Dr. Amit had shared his phone number with the students, all the interactions on various phone medium such as WhatsApp, would fall under the ambit of the definition of a 'workplace'. It was further held that in the case of Complainant No.1, it was Dr. Amit himself who had sent the friend request on Facebook. As a result, the interaction on social media was therefore an extension of the work relationship between Dr. Amit and Complainant No. 1 because Dr. Amit was not a 'personal friend' of the Complainant No. 1.
The High Court further upheld the contention of the College that the writ is not maintainable as an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act can be filed against the recommendations made by the IC before the Court or the Tribunal within 90 days from date of recommendations. Having failed to adopt this procedure also, Dr. Amit is now estopped from challenging the findings contained in the IC Report in a writ proceedings before the High Court.
On the issue of complaints barred by limitation and reasoning of the IC to condone the delay in filing of the complaints, the High Court observed that the POSH Act and UGC Regulations were enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and Higher Educational Institutions and for the effective prevention and redressal complaints of sexual harassment. There would have been some substance in the arguments of Dr. Amit, had it been a case of a single incident which was reported beyond the period of limitation. However, in the present case, it is clear that these incidents did not stop even after the confrontation of Dr. Amit by the students of College and therefore, given the objective of the POSH Act, these incidents cannot be seen in isolation. It is to be borne in mind that the Complainants were young students and it is only when the confrontational video became public that they found adequate support from their colleagues and were able to institute these complaints. This Court also noted that Dr. Amit had not brought forth a single instance to demonstrate that the delay in filing of the complaints had resulted in affecting his ability to defend himself in any manner.
The High Court found that Dr. Amit was given ample opportunities to defend himself, including access to documents and a defense assistant. The refusal to allow face-to-face cross-examination was justified under SAKSHAM Guidelines to protect complainants from re-victimization.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, all the submissions of Dr. Amit were rejected by the Court as being devoid of merits. The Delhi High Court thus dismissed the writ petition, upholding the IC's findings and the Governing Body's decision to compulsorily retire Dr. Amit.
Anhad Law's Perspective
The judgment is significant as it reinforces the judiciary's commitment to uphold the POSH Act's intent to create safe workplaces, particularly in educational institutions. The judgment marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of the POSH Act by expanding the definition of "workplace" to encompass virtual interactions on platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook. This landmark decision underscores that digital communications between teachers and students, even outside physical campus boundaries, fall under the Act's purview when tied to professional relationships. The judgment also limits the ability of the Respondent/ Accused to challenge IC findings on technical grounds, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural perfection, provided no prejudice is caused to the Respondent/ Accused.
Footnote
1. W.P.(C) 586/2021.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
