Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shubham Bhuwangiri Goswami vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2019
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder
and
The Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee
MAT 472 of 2019
with
CAN 3439 of 2019
Shubham Bhuwangiri Goswami
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
For the appellant/applicant : Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari
Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari
For the respondent Nos.2-8 & 10 : Mr. Neguive Ahmed,
Ms. Atulya Sinha Heard on : 01.04.2019 Judgment on : 01.04.2019 Biswanath Somadder, ACJ. :
Let the affidavits of service filed in Court today be taken on record. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the injunction application.
The instant appeal arises out of an interim order dated 27th March, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 4900 (W) of 2019 (Shubham Bhuwangiri Goswami vs. Union of India & Ors.).
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased not to grant any further interim order upon taking note of the CCTV footage and also an earlier order dated 1st March, 2019, by which the writ petitioner was allowed to 2 take the examination. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the concerned authorities were directed not to publish the result of the examination until further orders of the Court. The learned Single Judge has held that in the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to continue with such interim order till the disposal of the writ petition. Consequently, the learned Single Judge gave direction for filing of affidavits.
The appellant before us is the writ petitioner.
It is the specific submission of the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner that the complainant - being the respondent no.9 - does not fall within the statutory definition of an "aggrieved woman" and whether the incident which took place could be held to be in a "workplace" of the "aggrieved woman"; both expressions being clearly defined under the provisions of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
In the facts of the instant case, we notice that both - the appellant/writ petitioner and the private respondent no.9 - are students of the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. They, along with a group of students (total 38 in number), decided to have a party outside their campus and booked a lounge named Privy Lounge, Bar-Cum-Restaurant at the Forum Shopping Mall for the said party which was scheduled to be held on 12th November, 2018. Each of them contributed their own and the party was held on the evening of that day. On 14th November, 2018, the appellant/writ petitioner received a mail from the Chairperson, Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee, directing him to meet the Chairperson as early as possible regarding sexual harassment complaint 3 lodged against him by the private respondent no.9. It is the specific case of the appellant/writ petitioner that no copy of the complaint was ever forwarded to him. The statements made by the appellant/writ petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are required to be reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. That on receipt of such restraint order, your petitioner meet the Chairperson, ICC who informed the petitioner that the respondent no.9 lodged a purported complaint against the petitioner alleging inter alia that the petitioner tried to forcefully kiss the complainant/respondent no.9 though the petitioner has repeatedly denied such allegations. The Chairperson of ICC tried to intimidate the petitioner to accept the mistake otherwise threatened him that the repurcussion [sic; read, repercussion] would be severe. The Chairperson proposed to form an enquiry committee to which the petitioner has agreed. Accordingly, your petitioner received a mail from the Chairperson, ICC for appearing in front of the committee on 19.11.2018 to which the petitioner replied with an affirmation of his availability. Your petitioner also received a mail from PGP representatives that your petitioner has been temporarily suspended from the class representative position until further notice."
On 19th November, 2018, the appellant/writ petitioner was interrogated by the Chairperson, Internal Complaints Committee and also by the students' representative of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). After hearing the appellant/writ petitioner, the members of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) requested him to appear along with the witnesses on the next occasion. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner has stated, inter alia, that on 20th November, 2018, he received a mail from the ICC demanding the list of his witnesses and evidences which he wanted to rely. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he replied to this mail attaching the picture of the dinner table and audio recording along with the list of witnesses with their contact details. It has been stated by the appellant/writ petitioner that the allegations of sexual harassment have no basis at all and the same would be 4 reflected from the picture sent by him which was taken at around 12.13 A.M. on the night of the party. The appellant/writ petitioner has also stated in paragraph 8 that a lady alleging sexual harassment in the Forum Shopping Mall on 12th November, 2018, cannot be in such a mood as would appear from a bare look at the photograph itself. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner has specifically stated that on 25th November, 2018, he received a mail from the ICC asking him to appear before them on 27th November, 2018. He has stated further that such notice was in violation of the Rules framed under the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta Sexual Harassment Order and Rules, 2014.
For the purpose of deciding this appeal, we need not delve any further into the factual aspects of the matter since we are only confining ourselves to the question as to whether the learned Single Judge - in the facts and circumstances of instant case - could have passed an interim order directing the concerned authorities of the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, not to publish the result of the examination wherein the appellant/writ petitioner had participated.
In order to answer this question we need to look into the issue involved in the instant matter and that is, whether in the facts of the instant case, the private respondent no.9 - being the complainant - could be held to be an "aggrieved woman" or the Privy Lounge at Forum Shopping Mall could be held to be a "workplace" of the "aggrieved woman", both statutorily defined under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
5
It is the admitted position that the private respondent no.9 as well as the appellant/writ petitioner are students of Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. Under section 2(a) of the Act, 2013, an "aggrieved woman" means - (i) in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent;
The above statutory definition makes it clear that an aggrieved woman has to be necessarily in relation to a particular workplace. Privy Lounge, Bar-Cum- Restaurant at Forum Shopping Mall, is admittedly not a workplace of the private respondent no.9. "Workplace" has been statutorily defined under section 2 sub- section (o)(i), (o)(ii), (o)(iii), (o)(iv), (o)(v) and (o)(vi) of the said Act of 2013.
As such, we do find merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner on the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to an interim order or not.
We, therefore, modify the order dated 27th March, 2019, by directing the concerned authority of Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, to publish the result of the examination wherein the appellant/writ petitioner participated and also allow him to avail the summer Internship programme from 1st April, 2019 to 31st May, 2019. Publication of the result, however, shall abide by the result of the writ petition.
The direction for affidavits also stands modified to the extent as stated hereinbelow:-
6
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition be filed within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within three weeks thereafter.
Once affidavits are filed, the parties are at liberty to approach the Court having appropriate determination for early hearing of the matter.
Since no affidavits have been called for, allegations made in the connected application shall be deemed to be not admitted by the respondents.
The appeal along with the connected application stands disposed of in terms of this order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, ACJ.) I agree.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.) PP ./01.