A district court in Delhi has issued a significant order, directing the police to formally register a First Information Report (FIR) against the vice-chancellor of Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) and its former registrar. This directive comes in response to a sexual harassment complaint filed by a woman faculty member of the university.
Court Directs Police Investigation
On Wednesday, the Dwarka district court passed an order allowing an application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court has explicitly instructed the Dwarka police station to register an FIR and conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations. The judicial authority noted that the accusations constitute a cognisable offence, mandating police action. The police have been given a deadline to file a compliance report by January 19, 2025.
Allegations and Retaliation Claims
The complainant, who was a faculty member at one of the erstwhile Department of Training and Technical Education campuses that later merged with DSEU, has detailed her allegations. She states that the incident occurred on January 31, 2024, when she approached university officials regarding the non-payment of her salary. During two separate visits, she alleges she was subjected to lewd remarks and inappropriate behaviour by the accused officials.
Despite approaching the police in February 2024, no FIR was registered at that time. In a subsequent move that she claims was retaliatory, the university placed her under suspension in April 2024. She asserts this action was intended to silence her. The suspension was later revoked on October 1, 2024, following an inquiry by a DSEU committee.
University's Response and Legal Counter
Vice-Chancellor Ashok Kumar Nagawat has strongly refuted the allegations. In response to the court's order, he stated that he has filed revision and stay petitions against the direction. He labeled the accusations as "baseless" and indicated that a defamation case may be initiated soon.
Nagawat presented the university's side, claiming that an internal inquiry conducted by a committee constituted by the board of management found the complainant guilty. He stated that disciplinary action recommended by the board is pending with the cadre-controlling authority. "Tactics to pressurise by framing false accusations will not work," he emphasised.
Judicial Scrutiny and Missing Evidence
The court's order highlighted several critical points. It noted that the faculty member was forced to seek judicial intervention after police delayed action despite her repeated representations. The court had earlier sought an action-taken report from the police, where the investigating officer opined that the matter seemed departmental and civil in nature.
However, the court observed that the allegations, prima facie, indicated the commission of a cognisable offence, which warrants a police investigation. A significant point recorded by the court was the university's failure to provide CCTV footage of the alleged incident. The absence of this potential evidence raised questions that, in the court's view, necessitate field investigation and police intervention.
This case brings to the forefront issues of institutional accountability, the mechanisms for addressing sexual harassment complaints in educational institutions, and the role of judicial oversight when administrative or police action is perceived as lacking.
