The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition, observing that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and command to apologize for raising a grievance regarding access to a hygienic restroom facility was unsustainable.

The case arose from a workplace grievance raised by the petitioner, a senior professor at the respondent university, i.e., Jamia Millia Islamia, relating to the use of a restroom facility in the Centre for West Asian Studies. The petitioner states that the facility, which she had been using, was later made accessible for indiscriminate common use, resulting in deterioration of hygiene. She addressed a complaint dated December 17, 2024, seeking one standalone restroom in the center to be designated as a ladies’ toilet while pointing out her knee condition, which made use of a western-style commode necessary.

The grievance led to issuance of a show cause notice alleging misconduct on the ground that the petitioner had not followed the proper channel and had used objectionable language against a statutory officer. A committee was constituted to examine her reply, which culminated in an office order commanding her to apologize.

The respondent justified the impugned action, placing reliance on university circulars as well as DoPT instructions concerning official correspondence, canvassing that the petitioner has violated prescribed procedure and used objectionable expressions. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted the action as an escalation of a legitimate workplace concern relating to hygiene and dignity.

Hearing the petition, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula noted that the request relating to the use of a hygienic restroom facility, particularly when raised by a woman employee with a stated medical difficulty, is not a matter to be trivialized. The court held that decorum in institutional functioning serves an important purpose. At the same time, the insistence on channel, form, and hierarchy cannot become so rigid that it overwhelms the substance of a grievance that touches dignity, hygiene, and humane working conditions.

The court further held that the direction to submit an apology was unfortunate and wrong, observing that an apology must be voluntary and cannot be extracted through office orders. The court also noted that access to clean, usable, and dignified restroom facilities is part of elementary working conditions.

Accordingly, the court has set aside the show cause notice and the notification constituting the committee and the office order directing apology and directed the university to reconsider the petitioner’s grievance as an administrative matter with due sensitivity to hygiene, privacy, dignity, and her stated medical condition within four weeks, ensuring access to a hygienic and suitable restroom facility in the interim, without expressing any option on the precise manner of regulation.

Appearance:

For Petitioner- Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Advocate with Petitioner in person.