Rouse Avenue Court: The Complexity of Consent: Understanding the Difference between Explicit Consent, ‘No,’ and Implied Consent

Industry: Education | Court: Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi 

Case No: Dr. R. K. Pachauri v. Union of India & Ors. arising out of RCA DJ No: 5/23 

Date of Judgement: 03.07.2023 

Reference Chart 

The Appellant (‘X’) in the instant matter was the Respondent during the inquiry before the Internal Committee. The Respondent No. 1 (‘A’) was Union of India. The Respondent No. 2 (‘B’) was the employer to which the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 belonged. The Respondent No. 3 (‘C’) was the Complainant during the inquiry before the Internal Committee. 

Brief Facts: 

X filed an appeal against the Internal Committee’s findings and recommendations on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. X also raised the following grounds in his appeal. 

1. C had filed a complaint with the Internal Committee and the police. X had asked for time to file his reply before the Committee on the grounds that his mobile phone, laptops, etc. were seized by investigating authorities. 

2. IC conducted the inquiry in a pre-determined and hasty manner. 

3. IC did not provide X with contents of statements made by witnesses. Therefore, X could not rebut their statements. 

4. IC took the statement of witnesses at face value. 

5. IC relied on SMS and Emails even though an affidavit under Sec. 65-B, Evidence Act was not produced during inquiry. 

6. IC ignored the fact that there was mutual friendship between the parties. 

7. IC Ignored the fact that X was a friendly person and respectful towards women. 

8. IC considered C’s perception, but not X’s intention. 

9. IC placed reliance on text messages and emails between the parties and did not consider the fact that the police had sent it for testing to a forensic science laboratory. 

10. IC did not inform X of the material against him. 

11. The complaint is mala fide as Y had refused offers from all other departments and had stayed with X’s department to implicate him. 

Issue 

The issue that came up for the court to consider was whether the Internal Committee had violated the principles of natural justice while conducting inquiry? 

Court’s View 

The court based its conclusion on the following observations: 

1. IC’s findings and punishment imposed is based on deposition and testimonies of witnesses examined. 

2. IC followed the principles of natural justice. 

3. IC has acted as a neutral body and conducted proceedings in a fair manner. 

4. X admitted most of the conversations that were alleged by C. 

5. Emails and messages from X were duly considered, and such emails and messages clearly showed C’s physical and mental exploitation by . 

6. X had misused his position and X should have been extra vigilant in his conduct. 

7. A “Man” should know the difference amongst explicit consensus by woman and her explicit “No” or her implied consent. 

Conclusion 

The court rejected X’s appeal and upheld the IC report affirming that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings and recommendations of the IC.