The Delhi High Court recently took serious exception to the disciplinary action taken against a professor of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University after she filed a complaint flagging the need for a new, clean ladies' toilet [Prof Sujata Ashwarya vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors].

Senior Professor Sujata Ashwarya, who taught at the Centre for West Asian Studies at JMI, was sent a show-cause notice about eight months after she sent in the complaint.

The professor had sought a standalone, clean, ladies' toilet at the Centre after the hygienic conditions of the existing toilet had deteriorated. She informed that she suffered from a medical condition, which made it difficult for her to use the existing toilet.

The University, however, said that she had not followed the proper channel to raise the request. Its show-cause notice also claimed that the professor had used objectionable content in her complaint.

A four-member committee was constituted to consider her reply to the show cause notice.

In January 2026, the professor was asked to submit a written apology for misconduct and insubordination. This was challenged by the professor before the High Court.

On March 13, Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the professor and set aside the direction to submit a written apology. 

The Court stated that the direction was unsustainable, manifestly disproportionate and unwarranted in a matter involving hygiene and dignity at the workplace.

“Directing the Petitioner to tender a written apology are unsustainable, inasmuch as they disclose a manifestly disproportionate response to her grievance, proceed on an unduly formalistic view of procedural discipline in a matter involving hygiene and dignity at the workplace, and culminate in a direction to apologise, which, in the facts of the case, cannot be justified in law. The said actions are accordingly quashed and set aside," the Court said.

The Court added that the action taken by the university was deeply unfortunate.

“In the opinion of the Court, the entire course adopted by the Respondent University is deeply unfortunate. A grievance relating to access to a hygienic restroom at the workplace, especially when raised by a woman employee who also asserts a physical difficulty in using certain types of facilities, is not a matter to be trivialised.”

The Court also remarked that universities are not merely administrative establishments and are expected to display sensitivity while handling such issues within their campus.

“Universities are not merely administrative establishments. They are places expected to exhibit maturity, fairness and sensitivity in dealing with human concerns arising within their own precincts," the ruling said.

The Court expressed displeasure at the University for its insistence that the professor use the "proper channel" to raise her complaint. The Court said that the University should not have taken such a rigid stance in a matter concerning humane working conditions.

“A complaint of this nature called for engagement, not escalation,” the Court stated.

The Court added that the University ought to have given a measured and proportionate response to address the professor's grievance, instead of forcing the professor to apologise or suggest that raising the grievance was itself wrong.

“An apology, to retain any meaning, must be voluntary. It cannot be extracted through office orders. Still less can it be imposed as the institutional answer to a grievance concerning access to a basic and hygienic facility at the workplace. A direction to apologise in such circumstances carries the unfortunate suggestion that the raising of the grievance itself was the wrong. That is where the University, in the view of the Court, clearly adopted an untenable course," the Court held.

The Court further emphasized the importance of providing a safe and secure environment for women at the workplace. Justice Narula stated that a grievance filed by a woman employee in matters of dignity cannot be met with punishment. 

“A safe and secure environment for women at the workplace is not to be understood in a narrow sense. It includes conditions that enable them to work with dignity, decency and due respect. Access to clean, usable and dignified restroom facilities is part of those elementary working conditions. It is not for this Court to prescribe the precise modality by which the University should manage or allocate its restroom facilities. That lies within the administrative domain of the institution. But it is very much for this Court to say that a grievance of this nature ought not to be met with punitive formalism," the Court ruled.

The Court proceeded to direct JMI to consider the professor's request for a new ladies toilet within four weeks. The Court underscored that this grievance must be examined with due sensitivity to hygiene, privacy, dignity and the professor's stated medical condition.

"Until such decision is taken, the University shall ensure that the Petitioner is not left without access to a hygienic and reasonably suitable restroom facility, bearing in mind the health difficulty asserted by her," the Court added.

Advocate Mrinmoi Chatterjee appeared for the professor.

Standing Counsel Pritish Sabharwal with advocates Shweta Singh and Sanjeet Singh appeared for JMI. 

[Read order]