Madras High Court Intervenes in BDU Professors' Sexual Harassment Case
The Madras High Court's Madurai bench has delivered a significant ruling that has led to the reinstatement of two Bharathidasan University (BDU) professors who were previously given compulsory retirement over sexual harassment charges. The court strongly criticized the university administration for failing to follow the proper procedures mandated under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act and directed the institution to conduct fresh, comprehensive re-inquiries into both cases.
University Syndicate's Decision Overturned by Judicial Order
During its meeting on September 22, 2025, the university syndicate had approved the compulsory retirement of both professors—S Ganesan and D Ramesh. This decision came following investigations by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) into separate allegations of misconduct. However, the High Court's intervention has now set aside these punitive measures, highlighting serious procedural lapses in the university's handling of the complaints.
Detailed Examination of Individual Cases and ICC Findings
In the case of S Ganesan, formerly of the economics department, the ICC report dated December 16, 2024, revealed that he was accused of inappropriate behavior toward a student on November 4, 2024. Interestingly, the professor reportedly admitted to sending late-night messages and emojis to the student and accepted all allegations except the specific incident on November 4. Initially granted court relief that allowed him to continue in service—as he was on leave when the retirement order was served—the court later overturned the syndicate's decision. Ganesan has since resumed his duties in the commerce department, where he had been demoted following the complaint last year.
For D Ramesh from the department of remote sensing, the situation involved different complexities. Registrar R Kalidasan, in a communication dated January 29, clarified that the court had mandated the ICC to provide the professor with a full opportunity to present his defense. This included the right to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses before submitting its findings under Sections 11 and 13 of the POSH Act. The university was further instructed to issue a second showcause notice and pass final orders in strict accordance with legal provisions.
Controversial ICC Conclusions and Lack of Witness Support
The ICC report on Ramesh, dated July 14, 2025, presented a particularly contentious scenario. It indicated that apart from the complainant, no witnesses—including the professor himself—supported the charges. Despite this, the ICC concluded his guilt based solely on what was described as 'agitated sounds of the student leaving the cabin', as observed in corridor CCTV footage. This reliance on ambiguous evidence has raised questions about the robustness of the investigative process.
Internal Dissent and Allegations of Procedural Violations
A member of the Vice-Chancellor committee, who also serves on the syndicate, expressed unawareness of the syndicate agenda, which should ideally have been shared with all members. He admitted, "Due to pressure, we approved it. This has now become a setback for the university." Adding to the criticism, former AUT president K Pandiyan accused the university of violating UGC procedures, stating, "Such issues are often used to settle personal scores. But who will take responsibility for this? Professors lose their reputation, finances, and much more."
Ongoing Legal Battles and Future Implications
While it remains unclear whether the university will appeal the court order in Ramesh's case, commissioner of collegiate education and VC committee convenor E Sundaravalli confirmed that an appeal has been filed against the court order in Ganesan's case. This ongoing legal tussle underscores the broader challenges educational institutions face in balancing accountability with due process in sensitive matters of sexual harassment.
The reinstatement of these professors not only highlights the critical importance of adhering to statutory procedures under the POSH Act but also sparks a necessary conversation about fairness, transparency, and the protection of rights for all parties involved in such allegations within India's higher education system.
