Madras High Court dismisses IIT-Madras professors plea towards findings of sexual harassment inquiry

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a professor at Indian Institute of Technology-Madras (IIT-M), difficult the findings recorded towards him by the Complaints Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CCASH) of the varsity for allegedly having subjected a lady scholar to sexual harassment.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh additionally refused to intervene with a show-cause discover issued by IIT-M Director V. Kamakoti to the professor in May 2025, searching for an evidence as to why a penalty shouldn’t be imposed on him on the idea of the antagonistic findings arrived at by the CCASH.

The decide mentioned that the discover issued by Mr. Kamakoti “might not have been fortunately worded,” and agreed with the professor’s counsel Aishwarya S. Nathan that the discover sounds as if the Director had already accepted the inquiry report submitted by the CCASH, and what remained was solely the imposition of a penalty.

However, he added that merely as a result of the show-cause discover had indicated the proposed penalty, it couldn’t be mentioned that the Director had already taken a last choice on the matter, particularly when the inquiry report of the CCASH had been served on the professor and he was anticipated to offer his reply to that.

Holding that the discover had been issued not just for the aim of awarding penalty but additionally for affording a chance to the professor to query the inquiry report of the CCASH and put forth his defence, the decide directed the IIT-M Director to contemplate the defence, in accordance with the legislation, earlier than arriving at a last conclusion.

“The inquiry report, per se, is nothing however a fact-finding report and that, by itself, won’t give any reason for motion to problem the report,” the decide wrote and noticed that courts should keep away from interfering with such inquiry proceedings as a result of in any other case, they might get delayed or their objective might get defeated.

When the professor’s counsel complained that the CCASH had not afforded a chance to his shopper to cross-examine the 17 witnesses, together with college students, whose statements towards him had been recorded, the decide mentioned the procedures relevant to departmental inquiry couldn’t be utilized for sexual harassment inquiries.

“A case of this nature can’t be handled like a daily departmental inquiry. It includes lady college students pitted towards a professor. Therefore, within the presence of a professor, the sufferer lady or the opposite lady college students (wanting to offer proof in help of the complainant) might not be capable of specific themselves,” Justice Venkatesh mentioned.

The decide additionally recorded the submission of IIT-M Registrar that the CCASH had been constituted in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, popularly referred to as POSH Act, and that the writ petitioner was requested to look earlier than the committee twice for the aim of inquiry.

After recording the Registrar’s submission, the decide directed the IIT-M Director to furnish copies of the recorded statements of the sufferer scholar, in addition to these of the witnesses, to the writ petitioner inside two weeks, and directed the latter to submit his clarification to them inside 4 weeks thereafter.

“After receipt of the reason from the petitioner, the second respondent (Director) shall present a chance of listening to to the petitioner, cope with the matter by itself deserves and in accordance with legislation and take a last choice as expeditiously as doable,” the courtroom ordered.