Live
Law: New Delhi: Thursday, 10 December 2015.
Central
information Commission has directed the Delhi University to furnish the copies
of complaint of harassment sought by a College professor. Prof M Sridhar
Acharyulu said that denial of such information will be violation of Right to
Information Act and Sexual Harassment at work place (Prevention, Prohibition
and Rehabilitation) Act 2013 and rules made thereunder.
Background
The professor
had, through an RTI application sought for the copies of complaints of
harassment, made against him and his wife, by some students(research scholars).
They were denied by the CPIO of the Universities, those copies, stating that
disclosure of such information would be inappropriate, as it would endanger the
physical safety of the complainants/accused and that the personal information
is held by the University in fiduciary relationship with the individuals
concerned.
Complaint
is not sexual harrasment
The
Commission observed that the complaints by 9 students against husband and wife
were not of of sexual harassment, but substantially of serious harassment. If
the University considered the complaint as the sexual harassment it should have
referred to Committee against Sexual Harassment of the College for inquiry,
which is mandatory under 2013 enactment and the directives of Supreme Court. If
they had not constituted committee prior to this complaint, they should have
constituted, at least after such complaint is received. After study and
verification of the records submitted in sealed cover, the Commission finds
that the complaint of 09 students was not referred to the committee against
sexual harassment, because the authority also was not sure whether the
complaint disclosed any allegation in the nature of sexual harassment, the
commission said.
Accused
entitled to copies under Rule 7 (1) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013
The
commission also said that under Rule 7 (1) of Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 , the applicants
is entitled to have copy of the complaint, even if it is assumed that the
complaint is in the nature of sexual harassment. The commission also said that
there is no evidence to show that the applicants did not know the identity of
research scholars whom they were guiding and that such disclosure would
endanger physical safety.
Public
interest exists
The
commission also observed that the information sought is relating to public
activity of two Professors and there is a public interest in proving or
disproving the allegation of harassment. As the public authority has not
initiated any inquiry against the appellant and her husband, it is not entitled
to invoke exemption/exception under section 8 of the RTI Act, the commission
said.
Complaint
is not a confidential information
The
commission also said that PG students did not give any secret information or
did not ask the authorities to keep the information confidential, but they made
a complaint and wanted the authorities to act on that. This is not information,
but a complaint required to be inquired into. The public authority like
University, in this case has not conducted any inquiry into the allegation, but
wrongly claimed that the ‘complaint’ is personal or fiduciary information and illegally
denied the same to the officers who were accused, the commission observed.
The appeal
before the commission was disposed of by issuing following directions:
· The Complaint filed by three male and six female PG
students against Dr. Sanjay Agarwal and his wife Dr. Aruna Agarwal is not of
sexual harassment but of serious harassment, which do not attract any provision
of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013.
· Even if assumed that the complaint in this case discloses
possibility of sexual harassment charge, Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not
prohibit sharing of the copy of complaint with the complained officers.
· Public authority should read Section 16 of Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013 along with the rules made under this Act and circulars of DoPT which
specifically direct them to provide a copy of sexual harassment complaint to
charged officer.
· Principles of natural justice demand that the copy of the
complaint must be given to the accused officer so that he would get ample
opportunity to defend the charge made against him.
· It is absolutely irrelevant and wrong to assume that
disclosing identity of complainants to the complained officer would endanger
the life of complainants, when the complainants were PG students researching
under the supervision of the complained doctors.
· It is absolutely wrong to consider the complaint given to
authorities for taking action as information given in fiduciary relationship.
· Invoking irrelevant provisions of exceptions, wrongly
assuming the complaint as sexual harassment complaint and wrongly interpreting
Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition
and Redressal) Act, 2013 by the public authority do not reflect any good faith
on the part of CPIO and other officers but show that they are unreasonably not
interested in sharing any information with the appellant and her husband. Hence
the Commission directs CPIO to furnish the certified copies as sought under
point A, B, C, & D, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
.JPG)
.JPG)
