MNLU student found guilty of sexual harassment twice gets away with a year’s community service

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday directed the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) to declare the results of a student found guilty of sexual harassment contingent upon his completion of community service for one academic year. This decision follows a series of incidents involving the student—who comes from a family of prominent lawyers from Nagpur—who has been twice held accountable for misconduct on campus.

The case originated from a female student’s complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on March 1, 2023, detailing an incident that occurred on February 26-27, 2023. After a thorough investigation, the ICC concluded on April 17, 2023 that the male student was guilty of sexually harassing her and recommended his expulsion based on his repeated offenses. The in-charge registrar issued the expulsion order on June 17, 2023.

Aggrieved by this decision, the student appealed to the vice-chancellor (VC). On August 30, 2023, the VC found the appeal to be without merit; however, he allowed him to sit for the end-semester examinations as a matter of grace. The student then filed a writ petition in the HC, challenging the VC’s order. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court ultimately upheld the ICC’s report and confirmed the expulsion order.

Lawyers representing the male student argued that although he had appeared before the ICC on two occasions, he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the survivor and the witnesses who testified against him. They contended that the penalty of expulsion was grossly disproportionate and, if enforced, would irrevocably hinder his academic career.

MNLU counsel Uday Warunjikar asserted that the penalty imposed by the VC was both lawful and proportionate to the male student’s repeated misconduct. He argued that the issue of reform should only be relevant in cases involving a solitary act of misconduct, not repeated offences, and maintained that any leniency shown would send an inappropriate message regarding accountability in cases of serious misconduct.

Senior advocate Navroz Seervai and advocate Pooja Thorat, representing the survivor, strongly countered the student’s arguments. Seervai pointed out that there had been prior complaints against the student and that despite previous disciplinary actions, there had been no observable change in his behaviour. This pattern of conduct, he asserted, ultimately culminated in the present complaint.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the expulsion of the male student, stating that the VC’s decision was based on substantial evidence of the student’s repeated misconduct; however, it expressed concern over the indefinite nature of the expulsion, deeming it excessively harsh and potentially leading to the student’s “academic death”. To avoid prolonging litigation, it decided to impose a clear and limited punishment: expulsion for one year with community service.

Specifically, until the conclusion of the academic year 2024-25, the student will be required to undertake community service as prescribed by the university’s regulations and determined by the VC. After this, he will be eligible to have his results for the ninth and tenth semesters declared.