BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

AT
NEW DELHI

THE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA.

PETITION NO: ___ 599 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

ARUN………………………………………………………………………......APPELLANT

Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI……………………………………………….....RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. .3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .....................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…..……………………………………………………………...6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……..……………………………………………..….........7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..8

I. Arun’s advancement and action amounts to sexual

harassment……………………………………

II. Internal Complaint Committe is competent to deal with the students to students
complaints of sexual
harassments…………………………………………………………………

III. Violation of fundamental rights to gender equality and right to life and
liberty…………………………………………………………………………..

PRAYER………………….…………………………………....…………………………….13

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

NAME OF CASE CITATION

Vishaka & Ors Vs. State of AIR 1997 SC. 3011
Rajasthan
Medha Kotwal lele 7 ORS Vs U.O.I AIR 2012
& Ors.
Seema lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim & AIR 2012
Ors
Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State AIR 2008
Bharati Ray Vs. Director, Xavier AIR 2000
Institute of Management & Ors
St. Stephen’s Sexual Harassment 2015
Case
Dr. B. N Ray Vs. Ramjas College 2012
and Ors.

BOOKS& STATUTES REFERRED

1 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace by Indira JaiSingh

2 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Law and Policies by Romana Asmat and
Sidra Mahboob
3 Handbook on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention and Redressal)
Act 2013, The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India 2015
4 The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013
5 The Protection of Human Rights Act ,1993

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

1. Petitioner for the purposes of this memorandum shall stand for Arun
2. Respondent for the purposes of this memorandum stands for University of Delhi

3
 LEGAL DATABASES

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.casemine.com
4. www.ssconline.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Honb’le High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi, in response to the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Shalini complained to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that Arun, a male
student of L.L.B second semester in University of Delhi had been making obscene
comments to her suggesting that she sleep with him.

2. The ICC was established pursuant to adoption of the sexual harassment of Women
at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as Ordinance XV-D
by University of Delhi.

3. After due inquiry the complaint was found to be true and his section was changed
and he was given written warning to desist any contact with Shalini otherwise more
stringent action will be taken against him as per university rules, however he not
only continued to make obscene comments but also started stalking her.

4. Shalini complained again a year later and ICC after due inquiry found that despite
warning he continued to sexually harass her.

5. Pursuant to the recommendation of the committee, the University of Delhi rusticated

Arun for three years from the university when he was in his fifth semester.

6. Arun filed a writ petition in the Honorable Delhi High Court requesting that his
rustication by the university should be quashed and he shall be permitted to resume
his L.L.B course.

7. Sexual harassment being an offence under Indian Penal Code amounts to

indiscipline and the ICC passes the disciplinary actions provided in ordinance XV-B
of the University.

8. Shalini and University of Delhi now submit in response of the writ petition filed to
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

5
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Respondent submits three issues for consideration:

1. Whether Arun’s action amounts to sexual harassment as per the definition of sexual
harassment given in The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, as adopted by the university?

2. Whether the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) is competent to deal with the sexual
harassment complaints against the students under The Sexual Harassment of Women
at Workplace Act, 2013?

3. Whether incidents of sexual harassment amounts to violation of the fundamental rights

to gender equality and the right to life and liberty?

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[I] ARUN’S ACTION AMOUNTS TO SEXUAL HARSSMENT

As per the definition of sexual harassment under section 2(n) of The Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 Arun’s action falls within the ambit of the Section 2(n) of The
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013.

[II] ICC (INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE) IS COMPETENT TO DEAL

WITH THE STUDENTS TO STUDENTS COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENTS

As per the definition of section 4 of the sexual harassment of women at work place act
2013 every employer of a workplace shall by an order in writing, constitute a committee to
be known as the ICC (internal complaints committee) and as per the definition of workplace
under section 2(o) the sexual harassment of women at workplace act 2013 workplace
also includes institutions.

[III]VIOLATION OF FUDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO GENDER EQUALITY AND

RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY

It is a violation of article 14, article 15 and article 21 of the constitution of India.

Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection of law within the territory
of India

Article 15 prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of

birth.

Article 21 protection of life and liberty

7
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that,

[I] ARUN’S ACTION AMOUNTS TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT

WORKPLACE

 Section 2(n) "sexual harassment" includes any one or more of the following
unwelcome acts or behavior (whether directly or by implication) namely:
(i) physical contact and advances; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favors; or
(iii) making sexually colored remarks; or
(iv) showing pornography; or
(v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature;

In light of the facts when he had been making obscene comments to her suggesting that she
sleep with him comes within the ambit of section 2(n)(ii) and 2)(iii)of the act.

In Vishaka & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan11, the Honorable Supreme Court gave the
guidelines which includes definition of sexual harassment and also mentioned disciplinary
actions could be taken against such person.

Section 3(v) of the act also gives the circumstances, if it occurs, or is present in relation to
or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment.

 Section 2(o) "workplace" includes ·

(i) any department, organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution,
optic, branch or unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or
substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate

1
Vishaka & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SCC 3011

8
 2

Government or the local authority or a Government company or a corporation or

a co-operative society.
That means university of Delhi being an institution comes within the definition of workplace.

In Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State3it was held that the declaration on the elimination of all
forms of violence against women was adopted by the general assembly of united nations
1993. According to article 2 of sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational
institutions and elsewhere.

 Section 2 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 In this

Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "aggrieved woman" means
(i) in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to
have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent;

Section 2(m) of the act says "respondent" means a person against whom the aggrieved
woman has made a complaint under section 9;
Section 3(1) and section 9of the act also says it could be “any woman”.
It is nowhere mentioned she need to be only an employee at workplace.

In Medha Kotwal Lele & ors Vs. Union of India & Ors2 the Honorable Supreme Court
mentioned third party harassment which says here sexual harassment occurs as a result of an
act or omission by any third party or outsider, the employer or person in charge will take all
steps necessary and reasonable to assist the person in terms and support and preventive
action.

In Seema Lepcha Vs. state of Orissa 4court gave directions saying state government shall
give notification and guidelines framed by this court in Vishaka’s Case and in Medha
Kotwal’s Case .

Arts. 136, 21, 15, 42, 51-A(a) and 32 - Implementation of guidelines framed in Vishaka, (1997) 6 SCC
241 and Medha Kotwal Lele, (2013) 1 SCC 311 regarding sexual harassment at workplace - Held,

2
Medha Kotwal Lele & ors vs. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297
3
Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State 2008
4
Seema Lepcha v. State of Sikkim, (2013) 11 SCC 641
9
State Government to give comprehensive publicity to the notifications and orders issued by
it in compliance with the guidelines framed by Supreme Court by publishing them in
newspapers having maximum circulation in the State after every two months - Wide
publicity to be given on local Doordarshan every month - Social Welfare Department and
State Legal Services Authority to give wide publicity to notifications and orders issued by
State Government not only for government departments of the State and its
agencies/instrumentalities but also for private companies, (2013) 11 SCC 641-A.

Arts. 15, 32 and 136 - Rights of working women against sexual harassment at workplace -
Directions in Medha Kotwal Lele, (2013) 1 SCC 311, reiterated, that the Complaints
Committees shall be deemed to be the inquiry authority for purpose of Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and that report of Complaints Committees will be deemed
to be the inquiry report under the Rules, (2013) 11 SCC 641-B

[II] ICC IS CMPETENT TO DEAL WITH THE STUDENTS TO STUDENTS

COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENTS

 Once the sexual harassment of women at workplace Act, 2013 has been adopted by
the university then its provisions are to be interpreted in context of university which
deals with the student and employees and the ICC is deemed to have powers to deal
with the complaints of student to student sexual harassment also.

Section 4 of the sexual harassment of women at workplace Act, 2013 clearly says Every
employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a Committee to be known as
the "lnternal Complaints Committee".

In Medha Kotwal case2 court directed complaints committee as envisaged by the the
Honorable Supreme Court in Vishaka case1 shall be constituted in educational institutions.

 University grants commission has notified university grants commission

(prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees
and students in higher education institutions) Regulation, 2015. These regulations
clearly describe responsibilities of the higher education institutions, grievances,
10
 redressal, mechanism, punishment and compensation, consequences of non-
compliance etc. University Grant Commission (UGC) regulations being statutory in
nature are binding on all universities and colleges.
 UGC has also asked to ensure wide circulation of handbook on sexual harassment
at workplace” published by the ministry of women and child development,
government of India, amongst faculty, students and staff of universities.
 UGC regulations 2015 clearly defines constitution of ICC in point(i) and point(k)
says what comes within the ambit of sexual harassment

In St. Stephen’s College of University of Delhi case5 ICC followed Vishaka’s

Judgement and the provisions of sexual harassment of women at workplace act 2013

Point 10(2)(b) which give punishment and compensations where it is clearly mentioned
where respondent is a student, depending on the severity of offence, the HEI may suspend or
restrict any entry into the campus for a specific period .

 Sexual harassment being an offence under IPC amounts to in discipline and the ICC
can pass disciplinary actions provided in ordinance xv b (4) of the university which
says:
Maintenance of discipline and taking such action in the interest of maintaining discipline as
may seem him/her appropriate, the Vice-Chancellor, may in the exercise of his/her powers
aforesaid order or direct that any students or students
a) be expelled; or
b) be, for a stated period rusticated; or
c) be not for a stated period, admitted to a course or courses of study in a College, Department
or Institution of the University.

Appellant counsel contended rustication subjected to unreasonably harsh

punishment, The council for the respondent would like to highlight the fact which clearly
says Arun was given written warning to desist any contact with Shalini otherwise more

5
St. Stepehens College vs University of Delhi, 1991
11
stringent action will be taken against him as per university rules then also despite the written
warning he continued to sexually harass her .

ORDER XV B (6) also says, At the time of admission, every student shall be required to
sign a declaration that on admission he/she submits himself/herself to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor and the several authorities of the University of who may
be vested with the authority to exercise discipline.

So now it could be depicted that he himself is liable for the disciplinary actions taken
against him.

In B.N Ray vs Ramjas college and others6, The Honourable Supreme Court gave the
guidelines to ensure the prevention of sexual harassment of women. And asked guidelines to
be treated as law declared by Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India
and also had regard of section 2(1)(d) of the protection of human rights Act 1993

[III] VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO GENDER EQUALITY AND

RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY

It is a clear violation of right to equality under article 14 and article 15 which prohibits
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and asks state to deal
with Article 21 which protects right to life and personal liberty.

Section 2(1)(d) in the protection of human rights act, 1993“human rights” means the rights
relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the constitution
or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

6
B.N Ray vs Ramjas college and others, 2012
12
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. Such stringent actions are necessary as per the university rules.

2. To preserve fundamental rights to equality and right to life and liberty.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience.

…………………
(Counsel for the Respondent)

13