LI Network
Published on: December 31, 2023 at 15:25 IST
A writ petition filed by an IIT professor to annul an inquiry report and related actions stemming from sexual harassment allegations faced a setback in the Delhi High Court.
The Court refused to entertain the petition, asserting that even an erroneous factual determination by a Court or tribunal couldn’t be challenged via certiorari on grounds of inadequate evidence.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh’s bench emphasized the supervisory nature of writ jurisdiction, affirming that it cannot act as an appellate court.
The Court concluded that no rights of the petitioner were infringed, and no compelling circumstances justified court intervention.
The Court stated, “This petition resembles an appeal under the guise of a writ petition. The petitioner seeks a review despite no such specific violations of their rights warranting this Court’s intervention in the respondent’s orders.”
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted, “Certiorari cannot be granted unless there’s an evident error that strikes at the root of the matter. Yet, no such grounds exist in this petition. The writ’s scope is supervisory; the court won’t re-evaluate evidence or substitute its conclusion for the adjudicating body’s findings, whether court or tribunal.”
Represented by Counsel Arun Khatri, the petitioner, an IIT Delhi professor, faced allegations from a Ph.D. candidate in 2018.
The Internal Complaint Committee found the professor culpable for various violations after probing the complaints. The subsequent disciplinary actions imposed censure despite the sexual harassment charge being dropped.
The High Court noted, “The impugned letter provided the petitioner a fair chance to present their case according to sexual harassment guidelines. Therefore, there’s no inherent illegality in the orders.”
Concluding, the court emphasized that the grounds cited by the petitioner didn’t indicate any apparent errors in the order.
The respondent authority duly considered the petitioner’s plea and evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as inappropriate for the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction.