The Delhi High Court criticised Jamia Millia Islamia for acting against a professor who sought a clean ladies’ restroom, calling the university’s conduct deeply unfortunate. Hygienic restroom access grievances are not trivial when raised by an employee seriously.
The Delhi High Court strongly disapproved of disciplinary action taken against a Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) professor who had complained about the need for a new, clean ladies’ restroom.
Senior Professor Sujata Ashwarya of JMI’s Centre for West Asian Studies received a show-cause notice about eight months after she raised the complaint.
She had sought a separate, hygienic ladies’ toilet for the Centre, explaining that the existing facility’s poor condition and her medical condition made the current toilet difficult for her to use.
The University maintained that she had not used the proper channel to make the request and alleged that her complaint contained objectionable content. A four-member committee was formed to consider her response to the show-cause notice.
In January 2026, the University directed her to submit a written apology for misconduct and insubordination. The professor challenged this order in the High Court.
Additionally, On March 13, Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the disciplinary proceedings and set aside the order requiring a written apology. The Court held that the direction was “unsustainable, manifestly disproportionate and unwarranted in a matter involving hygiene and dignity at the workplace.”
The Court described the University’s conduct as 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 judgment emphasized that universities should show sensitivity when addressing such issues,
“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 Court criticized the University’s insistence that the professor use the “proper channel” to raise her concern, observing that rigid proceduralism was inappropriate in a matter of humane working conditions. “A complaint of this nature called for engagement, not escalation.”
The Court further stated that the University should have responded proportionately to the professor’s grievance, rather than forcing an apology or implying that raising the issue was itself improper,
“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.”
Justice Narula highlighted the need to provide women a safe and dignified working environment,
“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.”
ALSO READ: Sexually Harassing MBBS Trainees: Medical College Professor Gets 3 Years In Jail
The Court ordered JMI to consider the professor’s request for a new ladies’ toilet within four weeks and to assess the grievance with attention to hygiene, privacy, dignity and her 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.”
Advocate Mrinmoi Chatterjee represented the professor.
Standing Counsel Pritish Sabharwal, along with advocates Shweta Singh and Sanjeet Singh, appeared for JMI.
Case Title: Prof Sujata Ashwarya vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors