Source – hindustantimes.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cConsent, given under coercion, or without volition, is not consent at all\u201d, the Delhi High Court said on Monday while dismissing former Delhi University professor Ajay Tiwari\u2019s appeal against the varsity\u2019s decision to give him compulsory retirement after he was proven guilty for sexually harassing an MPhil student in 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cConsent may become a defence, where it is free. This is for the obvious reason that a victim of an assault, or an act of oppression, may consent to the doing thereof, owing to circumstances beyond the victim\u2019s control, which may partake of coercion. Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all,\u201d Justice C Hari Shankar said in a 58-page judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tiwari had challenged the DU Executive Council\u2019s decision in July 2011, giving him compulsory retirement from service on the basis of the proceedings emanating out of the complaint filed by the female student.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appearing for Tiwari, his counsel Manish Kumar Bishnoi said his client was a victim of a conspiracy hatched by the complainant along with other people who had vested interests and whose demands were not met by Tiwari.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court dismissed the appeal and said, \u201cConsent may be either expressed or implied. Conscious failure to put up resistance, to an act which is being committed, may indicate consent.\u201d It said that the word \u201cwelcome\u201d or equally \u201cunwelcome\u201d denotes a state of mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reacting to Monday\u2019s judgment, advocate Bishnoi said he would study the decision and would take a call on appeal after consulting his client.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The single-judge bench said the relationship between a student and teacher is \u201csacred\u201d and partakes \u201cdivinity\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSo sacred, therefore, is the student-teacher relationship that the slightest sexual tinge therein indelibly tarnishes the relationship and consigns it to profligacy,\u201d the court said, adding there can never be any question of a teacher seeking to justify having committed acts, admittedly of a sexual colour and connotation, towards a student, seeking to urge, in his defence, that the acts were not unwelcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge said it was \u201cpreposterous\u201d and \u201cbordering on absurdity\u201d to take such a defence that there were welcome activities from the student.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is essentially because sexually coloured conduct or behaviour, towards a student, by a teacher, is completely proscribed, morally as well as legally. Any such conduct, therefore, if committed or exhibited, can never be defended on the ground that the conduct was not unwelcome to the student.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is not, therefore, in the opinion of the court, open to a teacher accused of sexually coloured remarks, or exhibiting other conduct having sexual connotations, to urge, in his defence, that the student welcomed the acts,\u201d the court said.<\/p>\n