Gauhati High Court Dismisses Sexual Harassment Case Against IIT Professor
The Gauhati High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a professor from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Guwahati, ruling that the allegations did not meet the legal definition of assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that "mere touching" does not constitute force, as defined in Section 349 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by an Ahmedabad-based entrepreneur who had contacted the IIT professor for mentorship regarding her startup. She alleged that in 2022, during a car ride when the professor was dropping her off at a friend's house, he made "weird" remarks, held her hand several times to examine her palm lines, and asked her to pray at the Kamakhya Temple.
Following her complaint, a trial court took cognizance of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The professor subsequently moved the high court to quash the proceedings against him.
Court's Detailed Findings
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, who heard the case on February 5, 2026, stated that there was nothing in the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) or the survivor's statement indicating that the accused committed any act qualifying as assault. The court noted that the allegation primarily involved the professor holding the complainant's hand, but no motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion was caused to her person as a whole.
The court highlighted that for an action to be considered force under Section 349 of the IPC, it must cause movement or a change in movement to the entire person, not just a part of the body. Therefore, "mere touching" does not fall within the ambit of this definition. Without satisfying the definition of force, the question of criminal force under Section 350 or assault under Section 351 does not arise.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the professor had undergone a full departmental inquiry with the complainant's participation, where the allegations were found to be baseless. It appeared that the FIR was lodged two and a half months after this unfavourable result, possibly as an act of vengeance, which the court deemed an abuse of the legal process.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
This ruling underscores the importance of precise legal definitions in sexual harassment cases. The court clarified that under IPC Sections 349 to 351, actual physical contact that does not cause movement to the person as a whole cannot be classified as force or assault. This decision may influence future interpretations of similar cases, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of intent and action beyond minor physical contact.
The case also brings attention to the challenges in balancing protection against harassment with preventing misuse of legal provisions. The court's reference to the departmental inquiry and timing of the FIR highlights concerns about potential abuse of the judicial system for personal vendettas.
In a related context, the court's decision contrasts with other high-profile cases, such as a Delhi University fact-finding body that found sufficient basis for sexual harassment allegations against a college principal, indicating the nuanced application of law based on specific facts and evidence.
