Dismissed

Amrita S Nair v. Mr. Tushar

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/8014/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging an order by the Internal Complaints Appellate Committee of Christ University which reduced the punishment for students found guilty of sexual harassment were dismissed. The Court held that the appellate authority has exclusive power to consider evidence and impose appropriate punishment, and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion on the quantum of penalty.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions challenging the order of the Internal Complaints Appellate Committee reducing the punishment imposed on the students were dismissed.

Amrita S Nair Vs Mr. Tushar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.8137 OF 2020

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.8014 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION No.9408 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶10

IN W.P. NO.8137 OF 2020

¶11

BETWEEN :

¶12

AMRITA S. NAIR D/O M.P. SUDHIR KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O B3-142, DLF WESTEND HEIGHTS AKSHAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 068 ... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SHRI. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

JANMEJAI SHUKLA S/O VINAY KUMAR SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.S093 DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS JIGANI LINK ROAD BANGALORE-560 105

¶16

INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE CHRIST UNIVERSITY

¶17

REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER

¶18

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020

¶19

W.P. No.9408/2021

¶20

¶21

DR. MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶22

INTERNAL COMPLAINTS APPELALTE COMMITTEE (ICAC) CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. ANIL JOSEPH PINTO REGISTRAR HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶23

CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR DR. MAYAMMAJOSEH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶24

MR. TUSHAR S/O SANJAY RATHI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS KATWARIA SARAI

¶25

NEW DELHI-110 016 ... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SHRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4 - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE; SHRI. RISHI SOOD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2020 PASSED BY THE R-3 ICAC OF CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) IN APPEAL BEARING REF.NO.CU.ICAC.02/2020-2, ANNEXED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶29

¶30

IN W.P. NO.8014 OF 2020

¶31

BETWEEN :

¶32

AMRITA S. NAIR D/O M.P. SUDHIR KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O B3-142 DLF WESTEND HEIGHTS AKSHAYANAGAR

¶33

BANGALORE-560 068 ... PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SHRI. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND :

¶36

MR. TUSHAR

¶37

S/O SANJAY RATHI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS KATWARIA SARAI NEW DELHI-110 016

¶38

INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER DR. MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA

¶39

BANGALORE-560 029

¶40

INTERNAL COMPLAINTS APPELALTE COMMITTEE (ICAC) CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON

¶41

DR. ANIL JOSPEH PINTO REGISTRAR HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶42

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020

¶43

W.P. No.9408/2021

¶44

¶45

CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR DR. MAYAMMAJOSEH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶46

JANMEJAI SHUKLA S/O VINAY KUMAR SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.S093 DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS JIGANI LINK ROAD BANGALORE-560 105 ... RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SHRI. RISHI SOOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE; SHRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4 - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE;

¶48

SHRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶49

¶50

IN W.P. NO.9408 OF 2021

¶51

BETWEEN :

¶52

MR. JANMEJAI SHUKLA S/O VINAY KUMAR SHUKLA AGED 23 YEARS RESIDING AT #35 TAGORE TOWN PRAYAGRAJ UTTAR PRADESH-211 002 ... PETITIONER

¶53

(BY SHRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶54

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020

W.P. No.9408/2021

AND :

INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER DR. MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶59

INTERNAL COMPLAINTS APPELALTE COMMITTEE (ICAC) CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. ANIL JOSPEH PINTO REGISTRAR HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶60

MS. AMRITA S. NAIR D/O M.M. SUDHIR KUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O B3-142 DLF WESTEND HEIGHTS AKSHAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 068

¶61

CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR DR. MAYAMMAJOSEH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE-560 029

¶62

MR. TUSHAR S/O SANJAY RATHI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS KATWARIA SARAI NEW DELHI-110 016 ... RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY SHRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4 - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE; SHRI. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶64

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶65

¶66

SHRI. ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SHRI. RISHI SOOD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 - THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

¶67

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2019 PASSED BY R1/INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO HOLDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY AND IMPOSING THE PUNISHMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶68

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶69

ORDER

¶70

Petitioner, Amrita S. Nair has presented Writ Petitions No.8014 of 2020 and 8137 of 2020 and Janmejai Shukla has presented Writ Petition No.9408/2021 challenging the orders passed by the Internal Complaint Appellate Committee¹ of Christ University.

¶71

In Writ Petitions No.8014/2020 and 8137/2020, petitioner has challenged the orders passed by ICAC in the appeals filed by Tushar and Janmejai Shukla, respectively,

¶72

1 'ICAC' for short

¶73

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶74

¶75

reducing the punishment recommended by

¶76

Internal Complaints Committee² .

¶77

Writ Petition No.9408/2021 is filed by Janmejai

¶78

Shukla against the order passed by ICC for holding him guilty and against the order passed by ICAC confirming the order of ICC.

¶79

Petitioner and the two appellants before ICAC are pursuing Law Degree course in Christ University. Petitioner complained of sexual harassment against Tushar and Janmejai. The ICC held them guilty and imposed certain punishment. The Appellate Committee has reduced the punishment.

¶80

Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner, in substance submitted that the Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings recorded by the Internal Complaints Committee. However, it has reduced the punishment without any cogent reasons. Petitioner is a

¶81

2 'ICC for short'

¶82

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶83

¶84

victim of sexual harassment and aggrieved by reduction of punishment.

¶85

She submitted that the complaint was lodged against the aforementioned two students. The overt act of both are different. However, both have been given the same punishment. Therefore, the order passed by the ICAC is unsustainable in law.

¶86

Brief facts of the case are, petitioner complained about attempted pornography through snap chat by Tushar and Janmejai. The ICC conducted an enquiry and found Janmejai as an accomplice. He had negligently permitted Tushar to use his mobile phone freely.

¶87

The ICC has recorded that there were discrepancies in the statements of Tushar during the course of enquiry and the facts submitted before this Court in earlier proceedings. He has completely denied the allegations in his earlier statement. He had no explanation

¶88

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶89

¶90

with regard to the alleged image that he had clicked on 22.03.2018 using the mobile phone of Janmejai.

¶91

The ICC has concluded that Janmejai is found guilty of being an accomplice and Tushar guilty of sending an obscene image to the complainant from the mobile phone of Janmejai. The claim of Tushar that it was a prank has not been accepted by the ICC. Accordingly, ICC recommended following punishment against Tushar:

¶92

Withholding the student privileges such as access to library, auditoria, halls of residence, vehicle parking, scholarships, fee concession and identity card;

¶93

Suspension for a period of one academic calendar year of fifth year B.A. LLB; and

¶94

Debar from writing end semester examinations of ninth and tenth semesters of B.A. LLB.

¶95

ICC has recommended following punishment

¶96

against Janmejai:

¶97

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶98

¶99

Suspension for a period of one month, namely first month of academic year of fifth year B.A. LLB.; and

¶100

Debar from writing the end semester examination of ninth semester B.A. LLB.

¶101

On consideration of appeals filed by both Tushar and Janmejai, the ICAC has recommended reduced punishment as follows;

¶102

Suspension for a period of ten working days applicable from first day of institution of the first month of academic calendar of fifth year of B.A. LLB in June, 2020; and

¶103

To undergo reformative punishment as per Section 6(b)(iii) by involving in community service for a period of fifteen days from 1^st April, 2020.

¶104

Petitioner's grievance is that the overt-acts of both Tushar and Janmejai are different. Therefore, reduction

¶105

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶106

¶107

in punishment and recommendation of same punishment for both of them is not sustainable in law.

¶108

Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra³ and B.C. Chaturvedi and Union of India and Others⁴ and decision of Delhi High Court in Samridhi Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors⁵ .

¶109

Admittedly, petitioner and the two students against whom complaint has been made are students pursuing law degree course. The complaint against the two students is that one of them has sent a obscene picture.

¶110

The ICAC has recorded that the quantum of punishment required to be interfered with, because the act was committed by Tushar in the form of playing a prank with Janmejai. They were under impression that wifi was switched off. However, the image was delivered to the

¶111

3 1999 (1) SCC 759 (para 28)

¶112

4 (1995) 6 SCC 749 (para 18)

¶113

5 ILR (2005) II Delhi 911

¶114

W.P No.8137/2020 C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶115

¶116

complainant. It has further recorded that both students had not committed any such act earlier during their stay in the University. ICAC has opined that ICC ought to have taken a lenient view considering the fact that the students had committed the act for the first time. It has further recorded that considering the circumstances of the case, education and career of the students, the punishment required modification.

¶117

In B.C. Chaturvedi, relied upon by Ms. Jayna Kothari, it is held that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence and they are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The ICAC is a committee formed by the ViceChancellor of the Institution. The ICAC, being the Appellate authority, having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶118

W.P No.8137/2020

¶119

C/W W.P. No.8014/2020 W.P. No.9408/2021

¶120

¶121

the case has opined that the punishment imposed by ICC required modification.

¶122

In view of the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi ,

¶123

this Court cannot substitute its opinion in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶124

Resultantly, these petitions must fail and they

¶125

are accordingly dismissed .

¶126

No costs.

¶127

Sd/JUDGE

¶128

SPS

Amrita S Nair v. Mr. Tushar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrita S Nair v. Mr. Tushar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri J B Surana Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Sri H M Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kama Reddy

R Rajkumar Vs Smt Girija Rajgopal

M/S Bls International Services Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D G Kumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Hiremath Hospitals Private Limited Vs Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited