May 8 , 2019 ;

Facing allegations of sexual harassment, JNU professor Atul Johri told the Delhi High Court that the plea by women students — against a clean chit given to him by the university’s Internal Complaints Committee — has been filed to “harass, malign and humiliate” him, as he has been insisting on compliance with academic rules and regulations.

The submissions were made in an affidavit filed in the High Court, following the court’s notice to him and JNU on the petition filed by the women against the July 23, 2018, ICC report.

Challenging the ICC’s decision in court, the complainants contended that the committee “completely departed from the specific and limited terms of reference set out by the High Court”.

They contended that the HC had directed the ICC only to examine if there was a prima facie case of misconduct to suspend the professor.

Johri, in his affidavit filed through his advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, stated that “entire facts demonstrate that the instant writ petition grossly lacks in bonafides and has been filed solely to harass, malign and humiliate the answering respondent (Johri), who has been insisting on compliance of academic rules and regulations”.

“The lack of bonafide of allegations are evident from the facts: (1) even as per them, the allegations were grossly belated; (2) the ICC on examination of independent witnesses found that a campaign against the respondent was started and students were prompted to falsely accuse the respondent of harassment; (3) the petitioners have been in receipt of the report of the ICC for over six months, during which they chose to remain silent…,” it added.

It further said that the present petition challenging the ICC report is “not maintainable in law” since the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act “provides for appeal under section 18 of the Act of 2013 against the Inquiry Report, and the petitioners have not pursued or exhausted the statutory remedy”.

“When there is an adequate, efficacious and alternative remedy available as prescribed by the Statute, it is trite law that petitioner ought to exhaust the same before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and hence this writ petition ought not to be entertained,” the reply said.

JNU’s counsel had argued that the ICC has found the complaints of sexual harassment made by the women to be “malicious”.

Source link

Picture Source :