Facts of the case
The present case relates to the Petitioner, who was harassed by Respondent no. 2, Mr. Varun Bhagat, and is seeking to quash the inquiry report presented by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) dated 12th February 2019 and issuance of directions to the Respondents to comply with the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education (Gender Sensitization, Prevention and Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students and Redressal of Grievances in Technical Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2016.
The challenge to the present Petition was to the report of the Inquiry Committee of the ICC, constituted at the Goa Institute of Management, into the complaint made by the Petitioner against Respondent no. 2.
Discussion and Observation
The bench, consisting of Justices M.S. Sonak and Smt. M.S. Jawalkaar, took into consideration the Regulation in relation to the constitution of the ICC (Regulation 4), divulging into the matter of whether all the sub-clause of Regulation 4(1) had been complied with or not.
The bench drew the conclusion that while sub-clause (a) of Regulation 4(1) had been complied with, there were problems with compliance with the other clauses. As per sub-clause (b), which requires two non-teaching employees to be a part of the ICC, the present ICC instead of having 2 non-teaching employees, there existed only one. Further, sub-clause (c), which requires the ICC to comprise of three students was not entirely complied with. Even though three students were present in the composition of the ICC, the spirit in which they were present was not as per the sub-clause.
The bench observed that the three college students were dropped from the ICC owing to the fact that they were inexperienced and two of the accused belonged to their college. Thus, the bench agreed that strictly speaking, the three students were not part of the ICC. Further, the bench opined that sub-clause (d) of Regulation 4(1) had also not been complied with, as there was no external member belonging to a non-governmental organization.
Hence, the bench concluded that since the constitution of the ICC was not in accordance with Regulation 4 of the said Regulations, the report of the ICC was to be set aside. Further, since the constitution of the ICC was itself dissolute, the bench concluded there was no need to get into compliance of the Regulations under Regulation 8.
Conclusion and recommendations
The Petitioner stated before the court that she was not interested in remand or further inquiry into the matter, and wanted the inquiry report to be set aside. Thus, the bench terminated all further proceedings into the complaint.
Further, the bench displayed their approval to the Petitioner’s request and directed the Respondents to take steps towards proper compliance with the provisions laid down under the Regulations. The bench, with the agreement from the Respondent side, directed the ICC to be reconstructed within a reasonable time.
The bench recommended the Respondents to take cognizance of the provisions in Regulation 3(1)(j) and consider organizing regular orientation or training programmes for the members of the ICC to deal with complaints, steer the process of settlement or conciliation, etc., with sensitivity, which such issues demand.
With this, the bench disposed of the petition.
コメント