MCC sexual harassment case: HC refuses to quash ICC proceedings

In its recent judgment, the High Court of Madras has turned down the plea for quashing sexual harassment proceedings against a Zoology professor at Madras Christian College (MCC).

Facts of the case

In the month of January 2019, MCC arragned a study tour for the students of Zoology Department. 42 students were accompanied by seven faculty members, including the accused. In April, 34 students filed a complaint against the two professors, Dr.Raveen and Samuel Tennyson alleging them for sexual harassment during the trip.

MCC constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on April 6 to examine the matter. The ICC  heard the victims’ allegations and stated that professors Raveen and Tennyson’s actions amounted to sexual harassment. “…it is the unanimous finding of the committee that the actions of the respondents, Dr Raveen and Dr Tennyson did constitute sexual harassment by creating a hostile work/study environment that resulted in gender discrimination against complainants,”. On July 16, MCC’s principal Alexander Jesudasan fired Mr. Raveen.

Samuel Tennyson pleads court interference 

Following this, Samuel Tennyson college filed a writ petition and sought to quash the fact-finding report of the college’s ICC dated April 17, 2019. The report held Tennyson guilty of sexually harassing female students. He also sought to quash the consequential second show cause notice dated May 24, 2019. Tennyson submitted before the court that the ICC did not give him certain documents and statements he had sought to defend himself. He claimed that the procedure adopted by ICC was in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

He argued that the court must interfere with the ICC proceedings as there was a violation of principles of natural justice. He further argued that ICC has failed to adhere to the procedures contempalted under the Act. However, the college and the ICC said that sufficient opportunity was given to Tennyson to defend. 

Court dismisses the petition  

On an examination of the case, Justice Vaidyanathan saw no merit in his submissions. He refused to interfere with the proceedings of ICC. 

The court held that, “This Court finds justification in the act of the Committee. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court finds no infirmity with the report of the Committee. There is no justifiable ground to interfere with the Fact-Finding Report and the second show-cause notice. The action followed by the show cause notice will only bring the cat out of the bag…”

Justice Vaidyanathan said, “This Court do not want to go into the question of who is at fault in the present case? But at the same time, it has become imperative for this Court to indicate that several enactments were brought into force for safeguarding the interest of Women and we have to ask a question for ourselves as to whether those laws are invoked by women with genuine reasons.” He urged, “This is the right time for the Government to think of suitable amendment in those [women protection] laws in order to prevent its misuse so as to safeguard the interest of the innocent masculinity too.” A copy of the order was also marked to be sent to the Union Government.