Mumbai: The management of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay, has sacked Professor Arun Iyer (45) of its department of humanities and social sciences. This follows a slew of complaints of sexual harassment filed by a female staffer which were probed and confirmed by an internal complaints committee constituted under the POSH Act. Iyer has challenged his dismissal through a writ petition filed in Bombay high court.
The complaints considered by the ICC included "traumatising total nude exposure, request for sexual favours and implied academic favours in return, sexually coloured remarks, attempt to intoxicate in order to breach consent, giving details about his sexual organs and performance and seeking similar details in return." The complaints form part of Exhibit `A' of the writ petition.
The complaints form part of Exhibit `A' of the writ petition. Iyer has stated that the last incident mentioned in the complaint is of August 7, 2022. But, the complaint was filed on March 22, 2023. Under section 9 (1) of the POSH Act the time limit for filing a complaint is three months from the date of last incident with a second proviso permitting three months additional time. Thus the complaint has to be filed within six months. However, in this case the complaint was filed well beyond six months and as such it is time-barred. Also the ICC has no powers to condone the delay or extend the time period for filing a complaint, he had contended through his lawyers Saikumar Ramamurthy and Ramesh Ramamurthy.
Iyer has also alleged that the composition of the ICC was not as per rules since it comprised an advocate as an external member and a student representative. He said there was no representative of an NGO as mandated by law. After confirming the allegations the ICC had also recommended the sacking of Iyer.
The latter has contended that termination can be done only under service rules and the ICC has no power to recommend sacking. The ICC considered Iyer's contention about the time limit for filing the complaint and said under the circumstance of the case, it was justified in considering the complaint.
