Chennai, Aug 21 The Madras High Court has refused to interfere in disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Indian Institute of Technology–Madras (IIT-M) against one of its professors, who was found guilty of sexually harassing a woman student by the institute’s Complaints Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CCASH).
The professor had moved the court challenging the inquiry report and a subsequent show-cause notice issued by the Director of the institute.
Dismissing the writ petition, a bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the report of the CCASH was only a fact-finding document and could not, by itself, be a ground to approach the court.
The judge also declined to quash the show-cause notice issued by IIT-M Director V. Kamakoti in May 2025, seeking an explanation from the professor on why a penalty should not be imposed.
Though the judge agreed with the contention of the professor’s counsel that the wording of the notice appeared to suggest that the Director had already accepted the inquiry report, he clarified that no final decision had been taken.
"The report has been served on the petitioner, and he has been given an opportunity to respond. The notice is intended not just to impose a penalty, but also to allow the petitioner to question the findings and present his defence," Justice Venkatesh said.
Rejecting the argument that the professor was denied a chance to cross-examine 17 witnesses, the court noted that procedures followed in regular departmental inquiries could not be applied to cases of sexual harassment.
"When girl students are required to depose against a professor, they may not be able to express themselves freely in his presence. Such inquiries cannot be conducted like routine disciplinary proceedings," the judge said.
The Registrar of IIT-M submitted that the CCASH had been duly constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and that the professor had been summoned twice to appear before the committee. The court directed IIT-M to provide the professor with copies of the victim’s statement and those of other witnesses within two weeks. He was given four weeks to submit his explanation.
Justice Venkatesh said the Director must consider his defence, provide a hearing, and arrive at a decision strictly in accordance with the law.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor