S.Mathava Kumar vs The Chairman,

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 25.09.2026
Pronounced on 27.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011147012020}
CNR:{HCMA011839852023}
and
WMP Nos. 21404, 21405 and 21409 of 2020, WMP No. 19240 of 2021,
WMP No. 29546 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.10321 and 10323 of 2026
W.P.No.17301 of 2020
CNR:{HCMA011147012020}
S. Mathava Kumar
Vs
1. The Chairman,
Board of Governors,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai Chennai.
2. The Director,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai.
3. The Chair Person,
Complaints Committee against Sexual
Harassment (CCASH), Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai.
W.P.No.29937 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011839852023}
__________
Page1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
S.Mathava Kumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director
Indian Institute of Technology Madras ,
Chennai.
2. The Dean (faculty)
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in W.P.No.17301 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the recommendations of the Complaints Committee Against Sexual
Harassment (CCASH) viz., 3rd respondent herein as communicated in its letter
sent through mail No.Nil dated 23/ October / 2020 and quash the same and
consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from acting on the said
recommendation to the detriment of the petitioner
Prayer in W.P.No.29937 of 2023:- directing the respondents to consider
the petitioner’s candidature for appointment as Professor in Civil Engineering
Department pursuant to the Advertisement No. IITM/ MBS/ 1/ 2023 dated
04.09.2023
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For Respondent(s): Mr.Karthik Rajan,
Standing Counsel
__________
Page2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
Writ Petition in W.P.No.17301 of 2020 has been filed challenging the
recommendation of the third respondent dated 23.10.2020.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.29937 of 2023 has been filed seeking a
direction to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of
Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering.
3. Since both the Writ Petitions are interconnected, they are taken up
together for consideration.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petitions are that the petitioner, Madhavakumar, served as an Assistant
Professor at NIT Calicut from 2011 to 2014. Thereafter, he joined IIT Madras
as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering in November
2014 and was promoted in July 2016. On 03.08.2020, the victim lodged a
complaint of sexual harassment against the petitioner. The complaint was based
entirely on the WhatsApp conversations between the petitioner and the victim
during the period from 25.03.2020 to 27.04.2020. On 04.09.2020, the complaint
lodged by the victim was forwarded to the petitioner, to which he submitted his
explanation on 06.09.2020. Pursuant thereto, a virtual enquiry through Google
Meet was conducted, and the minutes of the meeting dated 08.09.2020 were
__________
Page3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
recorded. After considering the minutes of the meeting, the Internal Complaints
Committee, vide its impugned recommendation dated 23.10.2020,
recommended that the petitioner has to undergo POSH training, that he should
not be permitted to guide any Ph.D. student for a period of two years, and that
he be demoted to the post of Assistant Professor. The second respondent
approved the said recommendation. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ
Petitions have been filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner
submitted a detailed reply refuting the allegations. He would further submit that
the petitioner had been guiding the victim since 2017 and that, even during the
COVID-19 lockdown, he guided the victim through WhatsApp messages for a
period of four months in the interest of the victim's academic pursuits. On a few
occasions, the petitioner engaged in casual conversations with the victim.
However, the victim misunderstood the conversations and presented them in an
incorrect perspective, resulting in the complaint. It is also the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that no fair opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner and that, without conducting a full-fledged enquiry, the respondents
proceeded on the basis of the complaint.
__________
Page4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
6.1. It is further submitted that no opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned counsel would submit
that, had the petitioner been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, he could
have established that the conversations were not intended in the manner
perceived by the victim. To crown it all, the learned counsel would contend that
the respondent authorities imposed a major punishment without conducting a
proper enquiry. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that even the enquiry report of the Internal Complaints Committee was not
furnished to him. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow these Writ
Petitions.
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
would contend that the petitioner never raised any objection during the enquiry
conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee. Therefore, the present
objection regarding the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
is an afterthought. The learned Standing Counsel would further contend that a
complaint of sexual harassment cannot be dealt with in the same manner as an
ordinary complaint requiring a routine procedure involving the issuance of a
charge memorandum, examination of witnesses and cross-examination. Since
the issue is sensitive in nature, it was dealt with by a committee comprising
domain experts in an appropriate manner.
__________
Page5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
7.1. Furthermore, in the absence of any prejudice having been
demonstrated by the petitioner, the contention that the enquiry report is liable to
be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine
the witnesses is far-fetched. It is the further submission of the learned Standing
Counsel that the recommendation of the Internal Complaints Committee is not
the final decision, as the Board is the disciplinary authority and its decision
alone would attain finality and have an impact on the petitioner's civil rights.
When the Board has not taken any final decision, the petitioner's attempt to
prejudge the course of action is contrary to law. Hence, the learned Standing
Counsel prayed to dismiss these Writ Petitions.
8. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon several judgments in
support of their respective contentions.
(a) The following judgements are relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner:-
(i) Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala ,
reported in (2020) 12 SCC 426;
(ii) Manonmaniam Sundaranar University v. Dr. Govindaraju,
reported in 2022 (3) CTC 465;
(iii) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa , reported in (2024) 1
SCC 632;
(iv) Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.2365
of 2020, dated 24.04.2020);
(v) Ravi Selvan v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 10673;
__________
Page6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
(vi) Dr.A.Vadivel Vs. The Chairman (W.A.(MD).No.1189 of
2022 dated 02.02.2026);
(vii) The Chief Administrative Officer (Disciplinary Authority),
Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd., Vs. V.Krishnamurthy, reported
in (1991) 1 Mad LJ 150;
(viii) S.Shanmugam Vs. Presiding Officer, reported in 2005 (1)
L.L.N.404;
(ix) Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman reported in (1991) 4
SCC 109;
(x) Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4
SCC 161; and
(xi) K.Karthikeyan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(W.P.No.18765 of 2013 dated 21.11.2014).
(b) The following judgements are relied by the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents:-
(i) Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College ,
reported in (1973) 1 SCC 805;
(ii) K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India , reported in (1984)
1 SCC 43;
(iii) State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma , reported in
(1996) 3 SCC 364;s
(iv) The Research Scholar Vs. Research Guide/Professor
(W.A.MD).Nos.413 and 414 of 2020 dated 04.12.2024)
(v) Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd.,
Vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory reported in 1965 SCC OnLine
SC 77;
(vi) Dr.Debashis Chakroborty Vs. The Director
(W.P.No.9727 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020);
(vii) Medha Kotwal Lele and Others Vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 297;
(viii) Union of India and Others Vs. Dilip Paul reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423;
(ix) Dinesh Chandra Mishra Vs. India Council of
Agriculture Research and Others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine
__________
Page7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
Del 8891;
(x) Dinesh Chandra Mishra Vs. India Council of
Agriculture Research and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine
Del 1543;
(xi) Khajan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3802;
(xii) Shobha C Vs. Union of India reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine Kar 3687; and
(xiii) Satya Sundar Sethy Vs. The Complaints Committee
(W.P.No.24177 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025).
9. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is
evident that the outcome of W.P.No.29937 of 2023 depends upon the decision
to be rendered in W.P.No.17301 of 2020. If W.P.No.17301 of 2020 is allowed,
W.P.No.29937 of 2023 would also be liable to be allowed as a consequential
relief.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to either sides submissions.
11. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
relates to the violation of the principles of natural justice. It is his contention
that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the
witnesses and that no witnesses were examined in his presence. Without
conducting a full-fledged enquiry or affording a reasonable opportunity to
defend his case, the respondent authorities proceeded to impose punishment,
thereby directly affecting his right to life. Contrarily, the learned Standing
__________
Page8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that there was no
occasion for the respondents to afford an opportunity for cross-examination, as
the entire evidence relied upon by the respondents was of WhatsApp messages,
the authenticity of which had been admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner was in no way prejudiced in arriving at the conclusion, and cross-
examination was not necessary.
12. Before delving into the merits of the matter, this Court deems it
appropriate to refer to certain judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing on either side. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central
University of Kerala , reported in (2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that an order of termination based on allegations of
misconduct, without conducting a regular departmental enquiry as required
under the applicable Service Rules, could be stigmatic and that such an order
could be passed only after subjecting the employee to a regular enquiry.
13. In another judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University v. Dr. Govindaraju , reported in 2022
(3) CTC 465 held that where a delinquent employee was not afforded an
adequate opportunity by providing relevant documents, and when no
independent departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the
__________
Page9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
applicable Service Rules, then the imposition of punishment would be violative
of the mandatory statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa ,
reported in (2024) 1 SCC 632, held that procedural fairness and adherence to
the principles of natural justice are essential in proceedings relating to
complaints of sexual harassment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed
that undue haste on the part of the Committee could constitute a ground for
interfering with the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that the expression "as far as practicable" occurring
in Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules must be interpreted pragmatically and
that a calibrated balance must be struck between the rights of the victim of
sexual harassment, and those of the delinquent employee, without diluting the
principles of natural justice.
15. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nisha Priya Bhatia
v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.2365 of 2020, dated 24.04.2020), it was
held that an enquiry conducted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, is a fact-finding
enquiry distinct from the subsequent departmental enquiry conducted under the
applicable Service Rules. The two enquiries cannot be treated as a single
process, as each is governed by its own procedural framework. The Hon'ble
__________
Page10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
Supreme Court further observed that departmental proceedings must be
conducted in accordance with the relevant Service Rules while maintaining the
confidentiality of the proceedings.
16. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Selvan v.
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
Mad 10673, the Division Bench disbanded the enquiry committee on the ground
that the enquiry had been conducted with undue haste. Though the learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon other judgments, the principles laid
down therein are substantially similar to those discussed above. Therefore, in
order to avoid unnecessary elaboration, this Court does not deem it necessary to
refer to the other judgments relied by the petitioner.
17. Similarly, in support of the contention that cross-examination is not
invariably necessary, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira
Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College , reported in (1973) 1 SCC 805 . The
facts of the said case disclose that a group of students had entered the girls'
hostel without wearing clothes. In that factual background, where the identity of
the students had been established through the evidence of various witnesses, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cross-examination was not necessary. Though
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, where a reasonable and fair
__________
Page11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
procedure is adopted, cross-examination may not be indispensable. In the above
context, the factual circumstances of the reported case are distinguishable from
the present case. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present
case.
18. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi v. State
Bank of India , reported in (1984) 1 SCC 43, and contended that, where an
employee admits the relevant facts and does not seek cross-examination, the
absence of cross-examination does not automatically result in a violation of the
principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the employee has a
duty to demonstrate the actual prejudice caused by the denial of such an
opportunity.
19. The learned Standing Counsel further relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma , reported in
(1996) 3 SCC 364, wherein the principles laid down in K.L. Tripathi (cited
supra) were considered and reiterated. It was held that, whenever a violation of
the principles of natural justice is alleged, the matter must be examined from the
standpoint of prejudice. The relevant test is whether, considering all the
circumstances, the delinquent employee was afforded a fair hearing. The
learned Standing Counsel also relied upon several other judgments laying down
similar principles. In order to maintain brevity, this Court does not deem it
necessary to refer even to those judgments relied by the respondents.
__________
Page12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
20. From the foregoing discussion of the judgments and the rival
submissions, the essential question that arises for consideration is, whether the
respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013, and the applicable Service Rules as far as practicable.
21. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
concerns the failure to furnish the entire enquiry report. According to the
petitioner, only the recommendations of the Committee were furnished to him.
In the present case, it is not the specific case of the respondents that the
complete report of the Internal Complaints Committee was furnished to the
petitioner. On the contrary, the document furnished to the petitioner contains
only the final recommendation of the Committee. Even a perusal of the minutes
of the meeting discloses that the Committee arrived at its conclusion regarding
sexual harassment based on the deposition of the victim and the WhatsApp
messages exchanged between the petitioner and the victim.
22. In arriving at such a conclusion, the Committee relied upon the
admission made by the petitioner regarding the authenticity of the WhatsApp
messages. However, the specific submission of the petitioner is that, although
the conversations took place, they were casual in nature and were intended in
the context of guiding the victim in academic matters. According to the
__________
Page13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
petitioner, a harmonious reading of the entire conversation would not warrant
the conclusion that the messages amounted to sexual harassment. Therefore,
unless the petitioner is furnished with the complete material relied upon by the
Committee, including the relevant evidence and the deposition of the victim, it
would be difficult for him to submit an effective explanation and adequately
defend himself.
23. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the present stand of the
respondents in their counter affidavit in paragraph 4 (l) For ready reference, the
same is extracted hereunder:-
“4.(l). The Board of Governors was scheduled to meet on
04.12.2020 and in its Agenda, one of the items for discussion was
the CCASH recommendation on the complaint made against the
Petitioner. Pre-empting any adverse decision from the Board of
Governors, the Petitioner rushed to this Hon'ble Court on
30.11.2020 by way of the present Writ Petition and obtained an
order of status-quo. However the Board is at liberty to convene
its meeting as scheduled and can take a decision in furtherance to
the report of CCASH. The Board meeting was held on 04/12/2020
wherein the Board was briefed about the case and the report with
relevant documents of the CCASH, recommendations of the
Board Sub-Committee on Disciplinary matters were placed
before the Board for further direction. After detailed
deliberations, the Board authorised the Director to issue a
Charge Memorandum asking for an explanation from the faculty
member based on the Complaints Committee report and the reply
submitted by the faculty member may be submitted before the
Board meeting for further orders. Later, on 07.12.2020, this
Hon'ble Court modified the order of status-quo into that of
interim stay.”
__________
Page14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
24. Here, the main grievance urged by the petitioner is that the
respondents now propose to impose a punishment on the basis of an
inconclusive enquiry report which was conducted in haste manner. On a close
reading of Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it is evident that the Internal
Complaints Committee is treated as an enquiry authority appointed by the
disciplinary authority for the purposes of the said Rules. The judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes’s case (cited supra) has
explained the necessity of conducting a full-fledged enquiry, either at the stage
of internal enquiry or before the disciplinary authority. Though the Internal
Complaints Committee has recommended the punishment as extracted above,
now the respondents 1 and 2 have decided to issue a charge memorandum.
25. On a perusal of the subsequent developments, notwithstanding the
report of the Internal Complaints Committee, it is evident that the Director has
issued a charge memorandum calling upon the petitioner to submit his
explanation. Therefore, it appears that the respondents themselves were of the
view that, before proceeding further or imposing any punishment, the enquiry
conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee, which appears to have been a
fact-finding enquiry, is not sufficient, and they have accordingly decided to
issue a charge memorandum.
__________
Page15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
26. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, this Court is of the
firm view that any further deliberation on the validity of the report of the
Internal Complaints Committee would amount only to an academic exercise,
upon which this Court does not wish to spend its valuable time. Since the
disciplinary authority has understood the scope of the report of the Internal
Complaints Committee and has decided to proceed further by issuing a charge
memorandum, this Court expects that, in the course of the disciplinary
proceedings, the respondents will ensure compliance with the principles of
natural justice by granting the petitioner reasonable time and a fair opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses, either directly or through questions submitted
by the petitioner to be put to the victim through a female defence assistant or by
adopting any other appropriate procedure.
27. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the
respondents shall proceed with the disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge
memorandum and after obtaining an explanation from the petitioner, when oral
enquiry is conducted, the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses relied upon by them. The manner in which such cross-
examination is to be conducted would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. At this juncture, this Court would like to point out that even in
cases involving heinous offences under the POCSO Act against minor victims,
__________
Page16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
cross-examination is permitted before the trial Courts, however with all
precaution to protect the victim from revictimization. Therefore, the petitioner
shall be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, either directly
or through any other appropriate mode considered suitable by the disciplinary
authority, so as to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and a
fair procedure.
28. In the result, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17301 of 2020 is disposed
of with the above directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
29. In view of the aforesaid order permitting the respondents to proceed
with the disciplinary proceedings, the question of considering the petitioner’s
representation at this stage does not arise. Hence, the Writ Petition in
W.P.No.29937 of 2023 is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given the liberty
to submit a fresh representation, subject to the outcome of the disciplinary
proceedings. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
To
1. The Chairman,
Board of Governors,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai.
2. The Director,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai.
3. The Chair Person,
Complaints Committee against Sexual
Harassment (CCASH), Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai.
4. The Dean (faculty)
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai.
__________
Page18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )

2026:MHC:4319
WP No.17301 of 2020 and W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
Pre-Delivery order in
WP No.17301 of 2020 and
W.P.No. 29937 of 2023
27-10-2026
__________
Page19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 08:18:10 pm )