W.P.(C)--9407/2019. Case: ARTI DEVI Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberW.P.(C)--9407/2019
Judgement DateDecember 11, 2019
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)


Date of decision: 11th December, 2019

+ W.P.(C) 9407/2019

ARTI DEVI ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dibyanshu Pandey, Ms.

Bhagat & Mr. Veeraragavan Advocates (M-9953810683) versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Monica Arora, Standing Counsel

JNU with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Anushkha Ashok along with Pramod Kumar, Registrar 9810246300)

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing GNCTD with Mr. Chaitanya Advocates (M-9999981270)


JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J(oral)

  1. The Petitioner had filed a complaint on 9th January, 2018 before

    Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter „ICC‟) of the JNU,

    under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition

    Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students

    Higher Educational Institution) Regulations, 2015. The ICC submitted

    recommendations on 2nd August, 2018. One of the recommendations

    Committee was for re-consideration of the application of the Petitioner

    registration in the Ph.D. program. The said recommendation reads as under:

    “5. In case the complainant applies for registration to the Ph.D. Programme again it is recommended that the

    competent authority shall reconsider her application and under no circumstances her application should be rejected on the grounds of delay.”

  2. The Petitioner also simultaneously filed an appeal against the

    recommendations of the ICC. Three further representations were

    before the Vice-Chancellor. However, she was neither afforded a

    nor was given re-registration into the Ph.D. program. Accordingly, a

    petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:

    “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

    i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to form an Appeals Committee to consider the Appeal of the Petitioner in sexual harassment complaint no. FILE/ICC/11B/01-2018

    ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to decide the appeal within stipulated time of thirty days (30 days) as mandated by JNU ICC rules.

    iii. To issue any order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the matter.”

  3. When the petition was listed for the first time i.e. on 30th

    2019, an alleged office order dated 16th October, 2018 was handed

    which, according to the ld. counsel for the JNU, disposed of the appeal filed

    by the Petitioner. A copy of the same was handed over to the ld. counsel for

    the Petitioner to seek instructions. Thereafter, on 12th September,

    was noticed that the document dated 10th September, 2018, which

    handed over by ld. counsel for the JNU, had a noting to the following effect:

    “In view of above, the prayers of appellant cannot be

    considered by appellate authority and the recommendations of the ICC are upheld."

    Thus, there was ambiguity as to whether the appeal itself was disposed

    not. Further, insofar as the order dated 16th October, 2018 was

    the same was only dealing with Recommendation No.9 of the ICC.

    was no clarity on behalf of the JNU as to the remaining recommendations

    and the hearing of the appeal, as also the representation for re-registration.

  4. Some internal notes were relied upon by the JNU after reviewing

    said documents. On 12th September, 2019, this Court had observed as under:

    “8. A perusal of the above note in hand writing clearly shows that appeals against the recommendations of the ICC have been filed both by the Petitioner as also the Defendants in the proceedings before the ICC. The appeals were yet to be considered and no order was passed as on 10th

    September, 2018. Thus, the submission made before the Court that an order has been passed that no registration can be granted to the Petitioner appears to not be borne out from the documents handed over to the Court.

  5. The various recommendations of the ICC need to be captured at this stage and are therefore set out herein below: -

    “1. Defendant no. l should be censured in terms of the CCS (CCA) rules 1965 for creating uncertainty by not giving NOC to complainant as well...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT