Bombay HC grants relief to TISS student rusticated for social media post, quashes institute’s rejection of her appeal, seeks ‘dispassionate’ reconsideration

The court directed the appellate authority of the institute to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal challenging the rustication.

According to the petitioner, she had enrolled in a two-year course in the institute and while pursuing the said course, it was alleged that she and her husband were responsible for a social media post that was intended to target the officials of the institute.

The TISS had constituted a three-member enquiry committee to probe the complaint against the petitioner and the panel recommended her rustication from the institute. After the competent authority of TISS accepted the report, she was communicated with the decision of rustication, which prompted her to approach the high court the same year.

The high court had then noted that an alternate remedy was available to the petitioner and disposed of her plea in November 2022. The court had noted that the appellate authority should also consider an undertaking-cum-apology submitted by the petitioner.

The three-member panel then reviewed its earlier report and in December 2022, the institute informed the petitioner that the matter was ‘very grave and serious’ and that it was not inclined to alter her rustication.

The petitioner again approached the high court, after which the TISS was directed to constitute an appellate authority and decide her appeal as per law. The court asked the authority to “consider finding a solution to put an end to the issue” and disposed of her second plea in the high court.

Thereafter, the appellate authority submitted its report in December 2023 and found that “the petitioner had filed a frivolous sexual harassment case against a senior professor.” It had asked the institute “to show magnanimity to its students and not focus only on imposing punishments.”

Thereafter, the appellate authority in its report of December, 2023 found that “the petitioner had filed a frivolous sexual harassment case against the senior professor.” The authority found that petitioner had contravened rules and regulations of TISS and had willfully committed offences against the senior professor,”

The authority also held that the senior professor had not sexually harassed the petitioner and asked her to express in writing remorse for her action of lodging the said sexual harassment case.

Advocate Gauri R Raghuwanshi, representing the petitioner, submitted that the appellate authority was not justified in expanding the scope of the appeal by considering petitioner’s sexual harassment complaint against the senior professor.

Raghuwanshi added that expanding scope of the appeal despite the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner for the social media post, had caused ‘grave prejudice’ to her.

The court held that the appellate authority’s order was “liable to be quashed for the reason that it has travelled beyond the scope of the appeal and has sought to delve into matters that were not the subject matter of the appeal.”

The court, while directing appellate authority to reconsider her appeal, also stated that it shall confine itself to the said challenge against rustication.

The high court noted that since the petitioner wanted to pursue further studies, her appeal shall be decided ‘dispassionately and as per law’ within six months.

It clarified that the the proceedings arising out of the petitioner’s sexual harassment complaint shall be independently decided and shall not be mixed with issues arising out of challenge to rustication.