Delhi HC Quashes Jamia's Action Against Professor Who Sought Separate Ladies Toilet, Says Safe Workplace Includes Dignified Restrooms
The Delhi High Court has observed that a safe and secure environment for women at the workplace is not to be understood in a narrow sense and includes conditions that enable them to work with dignity, decency and due respect. Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed disciplinary action initiated by Jamia Millia Islamia against a senior woman professor over a complaint relating to use of a...
The Delhi High Court has observed that a safe and secure environment for women at the workplace is not to be understood in a narrow sense and includes conditions that enable them to work with dignity, decency and due respect.
Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed disciplinary action initiated by Jamia Millia Islamia against a senior woman professor over a complaint relating to use of a restroom facility.
The Court observed that a grievance concerning hygiene and dignity at the workplace should not have been escalated into disciplinary proceedings or compelled apology, calling the entire course adopted by the University “deeply unfortunate.”
Justice Narula allowed a petition filed by Prof. Sujata Ashwarya, a senior professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, challenging a show cause notice, constitution of a committee and an office order directing her to submit a written apology for alleged misconduct and insubordination.
The case arose from Ashwarya's complaint seeking that a standalone restroom in the Centre for West Asian Studies in the varsity be designated as a ladies' toilet. She cited hygiene concerns and a knee condition which made use of certain facilities difficult.
The University objected to the manner in which the complaint was addressed to the Registrar, alleging that Ashwarya had not followed the prescribed channel of communication and had used objectionable language.
The committee constituted recommended that the professor tender a written apology, which was approved by the competent authority through an office order dated January 02.
Quashing the University's action, the Court said that a grievance relating to access to a hygienic restroom at the workplace, especially when raised by a woman employee who also asserts a physical difficulty in using certain types of facilities, is not a matter to be trivialised.
“Equally, it is not a matter to be converted into a question of institutional discipline at the first instance. Universities are not merely administrative establishments. They are places expected to exhibit maturity, fairness and sensitivity in dealing with human concerns arising within their own precincts,” the Court said.
It added that procedural hierarchy of a varsity cannot become so rigid that it overwhelms the substance of a grievance which plainly touches dignity, hygiene and humane working conditions. A complaint of this nature called for engagement, not escalation, the judge said.
The Court observed that a workplace concern was transmuted into a disciplinary proceeding and, ultimately, into a command that the professor was asked to apologise, which was “plainly unsustainable.”
“An apology, to retain any meaning, must be voluntary. It cannot be extracted through office orders. Still less can it be imposed as the institutional answer to a grievance concerning access to a basic and hygienic facility at the workplace. A direction to apologise in such circumstances carries the unfortunate suggestion that the raising of the grievance itself was the wrong. That is where the University, in the view of the Court, clearly adopted an untenable course,” the Court said.
“Access to clean, usable and dignified restroom facilities is part of those elementary working conditions. It is not for this Court to prescribe the precise modality by which the University should manage or allocate its restroom facilities. That lies within the administrative domain of the institution. But it is very much for this Court to say that a grievance of this nature ought not to be met with punitive formalism,” it added.
The Court ultimately set aside the show cause notice, committee proceedings and the office order directing apology, holding them to be a manifestly disproportionate response.
It directed Jamia Millia Islamia to reconsider the professor's grievance afresh as an administrative matter, with due regard to hygiene, privacy, dignity and her medical condition, within four weeks.
The Court further directed that, until a decision is taken, Ashwarya must be ensured access to a hygienic and suitable restroom facility.
Title: PROF SUJATA ASHWARYA v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS