Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition

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