Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Teacher in Sexual Harassment Case, Affirms the Sanctity of Teacher-Student Relationship”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 26 July 2023, Delhi High Court upheld disciplinary action taken against a teacher facing sexual harassment allegations by a female student, emphasizing the sacred nature of the teacher-student relationship. The judgment reaffirmed the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice during such proceedings.

The court meticulously analyzed the case, considering various cited judgments presented by the appellant’s counsel. It was pointed out that those decisions lacked relevance and were distinguishable on key grounds. Notably, the court underscored that previous rulings did not impact the application of principles of natural justice in the present matter.

In its ruling, the court firmly established that the teacher-student relationship holds special significance and that certain conduct by educators is legally impermissible. It emphasized that the presence or absence of consent was insignificant when evaluating the alleged misconduct of a teacher towards a student.

One of the key cases cited and distinguished was the recent decision in Aureliano Fernandes, where the court found fast-paced inquiry proceedings that violated principles of natural justice. The appellant in that case was deprived of sufficient time and opportunity for cross-examination, leading to an unfair process.

Supporting the disciplinary authority’s decision, the court noted that the appellant had acknowledged acts of indiscretion with the complainant. It further held that the authority’s action of compulsory retirement was just and fair, taken in the best interest of the educational institution.

In the words of the court, “The relationship between a teacher and student is a ‘sacred one,’ and the appellant should have stood on high moral grounds despite any alleged indecent overtures by the complainant. The acts complained of were not legally permissible in the first instance, and existence or otherwise, of consent, on the part of the ‘other party’ paled into insignificance.”

With the dismissal of the appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, concluding that the impugned decision was not perverse, harsh, or unconscionable in any manner. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 26, 2023

PROF. AJAY TIWARI  vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Prof_Ajay_Tiwari_vs_Universtiy_Of_Delhi_Ors_on_26_July_2023_DelHC.pdf"]

Similar News