This article is authored by Harsh Pati Tripathi from NALSAR, Hyderabad & Uddeshya Singh from NLU, Delhi. The article raises a counterintuitive opinion in the minds of the readers. It tends to leave them perplexed that how a case dealing with the exigent subject of sexual harassment of college girls, could also drag notions like ‘innocent masculinity’. 

Introduction

“A teacher cannot be without character. If he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more from the teacher’s own life than they do from books. If teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them, they will have betrayed them. …” – quote by Mahatma Gandhi, cited in the relevant judgement by Justice S. Vaidyanathan.

The case Samuel Tennyson Vs. The Principal & Secretary, Madras Christian College and The Convenor, Committee of Enquiry, Madras Christian College, concerns the petitioner, Samuel Tennyson’s request for quashing the second show-cause notice and the ‘fact-finding’ report issued against him and his colleague, Dr. Raveen, in light of complaints filed against them for sexual harassment by 34 students of Madras Christian College, Chennai. The petitioner was an Assistant Professor in the Madras Christian College and had accompanied a group of 42 students for an educational tour to Bangalore, Mysore and Coorg. The tour turned out to be a disgrace for the college administration as the petitioner and his fellow colleague Dr. Raveen allegedly sexually harassed some students on the tour. The petitioner had argued on the legitimacy of the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee and had also stated how the principles of ‘natural justice’ were violated in the investigation carried out, by refraining his presence in the hall, during the enquiry of the girl students. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Madras High Court, asserted that the petitioner’s exclusion from the enquiry does not translate to violation of ‘natural justice’ as it is plain to see that the girl students could feel intimidated and latently threatened in the petitioner’s presence, which could hinder free expression of truth. The court, after a meticulous observation of all the averments, disposed of the petition and found the report by the Internal Complaints Committee to be a credible source for furthering the proceedings. 

After asserting the disposal, Justice S. Vaidyanathan included two more paragraphs in the judgement that became a point of contention and controversy. First, it is said that certain provisions of the Women Protection Laws can be subjected to misuse leading to oppression of “Innocent Masculinity”. Second, the judgement also contended how Christian Missionary co-ed institutions are “highly unsafe” for girl students and a rife conception about the same is on the rise. It is the striking irrelevance and biasness of these statements, with regard to the given case, that garnered widespread disapproval and contempt.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was an Assistant Professor in the Zoology Department of Madras Christian College, Chennai. In the month of January, 2019, a group of 42 students from the Zoology Department were taken on a study tour to Bangalore, Coorg and Mysore. There were 7 faculty members along with the students, the petitioner being one of them. Allegedly, the petitioner, Samuel Tennyson and his colleague Dr. Raveen sexually harassed some girl students on the trip. An enquiry was made by the Internal Complaints Committee (Gender Sensitization and Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women in Work Place, MCC) of the Madras Christian College which concluded in its report that the petitioner stood guilty of sexually harassing 34 girl students. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 24th May, 2019 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner on getting the notice filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court and sought quashing of the report by the Internal Complaints Committee and show cause notice. He questioned the legitimacy of the report and stated a violation of ‘Principles of Natural Justice’ as grounds for quashing the findings. After requisite deliberation, the court ‘dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.’      

Analysis of Judgment

Principle of Natural Justice 

One of the major points of contention, in this case, is its conformity to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed that the principle of natural justice was violated by his exclusion from the enquiry of the girl students. Eight girls were called for an enquiry before the committee and the counsels for the petitioner and Dr. Raveen. The judge believed the exclusion to be justified as their inclusion in the committee enquiry could intimidate and latently threaten the girl students, inhibiting a free expression of the account. Also, apart from this very empirical reason, there is no denouement in making a victim of sexual harassment, face the accused, while the victim’s accounts are being taken. Ironically, the exclusion which invokes the whole contention of ‘Principle of Natural Justice’, proves its extant all the more. Furthermore, adequate representation was provided by allowing the representation of the petitioner and Dr. Raveen through their counsels. The committee too had an advocate expert in sensitive matters of sexual harassment, to guide them throughout the proceedings. This underscores that the college administration took the requisite measures to ensure a fairground for the enquiry and the actions taken point more towards conformity than violation.

Credibility of the Report by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)

The Counsel for the petitioner made arguments as to why the report by the Internal Complaints Committee has no legitimacy. The point made by the counsel was the ‘recommendary’ nature of the report. He referred to another judgement by the Madras High Court, UOI, Srirangam & Ors. vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai & Ors, which emphasizes on the advisory and recommendary nature of such internal committee reports. However, the judge adhered to the argument posed by the respondent, which in sense is that the institution of an internal committee, at any instance, is the most preliminary and basic procedural action to take place. Moreover, after the appointment of the committee, the college administration is bound to adopt the report of the committee. But certain factors might come into play in reaching that conclusion. An underlying assumption in the judge’s viewpoint is the ‘independence’ and ‘neutrality’ of the members of the committee. Though mentioned in the judgement that the members of the committee were parallels of the petitioner, it in no sense can factor out any possible biases or elements of subjectivity that might play a role in concluding the committee’s report. This essentially projected a ‘realist’ perspective of the judgement which heralds the ‘subjectivity’ that is bound to creep in human assessment. Thus, the reliability of the report could have been an aspect worth deliberation. Also, analysing a prospective ‘feminist’ critique of the judgement, it nowhere sought the representation of women in the Internal Complaints Committee, which again, is something that should have been taken into consideration.  

The Question of Ambit

The petitioner further emphasized the argument of the ‘recommendary nature’ of the committee’s report. He cited Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013 for the same and asserted the fact that since he is a Government servant, the committee’s report cannot be a ground for action against him. Any requisite action can be taken only under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973. Also, he has protection under Article 311. But after examining the rules and articles, it can in no sense be concluded that there has been a removal from service or any direct punishment in context of the report. The Internal Complaints Committee Report was a mere procedural base required for building up further enquiries and investigation. The issuance of the show cause notice was an outcome of the same. A ‘positivist’ approach has been adhered to with regards to the concluded assertion. A substantial conformity to the text (here, the rules and Act) nullifies the argument of the petitioner as the report was never the base for any dismissal, rather only a procedural initiation. 

Extraneous Viewpoints 

It is quite aberrant that the most contentious aspect of this case has actually shared no substantial relevance with the facts of the case. A couple of assertions made by Justice S. Vaidyanathan have no tracing to a fair rationale and have the potential to draw significant criticism. The judgement mentions how certain ‘Women Protection Laws’ can be misused and employed as a tool to oppress ‘Innocent Masculinity’. It further exemplifies its statement by mentioning how Anti-Dowry Law (Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code) has been misused to the extent that the Supreme Court has even termed it as ‘Legal Terrorism’. In light of these statements, two major averments can be made. Firstly, while there is no denying that such incidents are a part of the realm, one cannot be ignorant of the innumerable instances where such laws have come to the rescue of women. Moreover, misuse of law cannot be solely attributed to flaws in its structuration. Factors like administrative efficiency can contribute to its misuse too. Total Compliance is an ideal state that lawmaking bodies should strive for. But it does not delegitimize Optimal Compliance. It could be compartmentalized as a utilitarian perspective, but if the ‘use’ is dominant over the ‘misuse’, it hints at building efficiency and not criticism. Secondly, a case that contains no elements of any oppression on ‘Innocent Masculinity’, should not contain such assertions in the judgement, in the first place.

The other such point of contention created in the judgement was what one can call a hasty generalization. The judge said that the Christian Missionary schools have become ‘highly unsafe’ for girl students. He believes there is a rife mindset building amongst Indian parents that co-educational Christian missionary schools impart good education but their devotion to morality is becoming questionable. The judge for some reason also felt the need to underscore how Christianity as a religion faces several accusations of converting people of other faith. Yet again, while instances of that sort are not non-existent, such a wide generalization is not a prudent call. There have been instances of similar sorts in every domain of societal life, be it religion, education or any other. Blaming a community-driven initiative for the acts of an individual does not contribute to the deliverance of justice in any way.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court quashed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Samuel Tennyson facing the charges of sexual discrimination, against the ‘fact-finding’ report of the Internal Complaints Committee of Madras Christian College and the show cause notice issued thereafter. No assertions of non-conformity to the ‘Principles of Natural Justice’ or questions of adherence to guidelines could essentially establish the justification of the petition. It was established that the report of the committee was a procedural outcome that the college administration had no other option but to consider. Furthermore, the report only acted as a base for further enquiry and not any dismissal. The allegations by the petitioner with regard to what guidelines were followed by the respondent in initiating the proceedings too stand negated as the guidelines under contention only apply to cases of dismissals. The exclusion of the petitioner from the enquiry of the victims in itself justifies the inclusion of the ‘Principle of Natural Justice.’ However, in a judgement, which otherwise could have been just another exemplification of ‘Deliverance of Justice’, inclusion of irrelevant and unsubstantiated assertions raises a point of concern. This case does not involve any oppression of ‘Innocent Masculinity’ and thus a frivolous comment on it was neither reasoned nor relevant. Deeming Christian Missionaries Co-ed schools as ‘highly unsafe’ for girl students on behalf of common people projects nothing, but a hasty generalization. 

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: