The court was hearing a plea by the professor challenging an order that required her to submit a written apology, with the university terming her conduct as “misconduct and insubordination.
The Delhi High Court has set aside disciplinary action taken by Jamia Millia Islamia against a senior professor who had raised concerns over access to a hygienic restroom, observing that such facilities form part of basic working conditions.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in an order dated March 13, stressed that “access to clean, usable, and dignified restroom facilities is part of elementary working conditions,” and said the university’s response to the complaint was disproportionate.
The court was hearing a plea by the professor challenging an order that required her to submit a written apology, with the university terming her conduct as “misconduct and insubordination.”
The judge made it clear that issues of hygiene and dignity cannot be brushed aside as procedural violations, especially when raised by a woman employee citing physical difficulty.
Highlighting the broader scope of workplace safety, the court noted that “a safe and secure environment for women at workplace is not to be understood in narrow sense.” It added that such safety includes conditions allowing women to work with “dignity, decency, and due respect,” and that restroom access is integral to that framework.
he dispute arose from a complaint filed in December 2024 regarding facilities at the Centre for West Asian Studies. The professor had requested that a standalone restroom be designated for women, pointing out that similar arrangements existed in other departments.
She also stated that a western-style commode was necessary due to a knee condition that made squatting difficult. According to her, the facility she had been using was locked and later opened for common use, which led to hygiene concerns.
Instead of addressing the issue, the university objected to the manner in which the complaint was submitted, citing a failure to follow the “proper channel.” A show-cause notice was issued in August 2025, followed by internal proceedings that culminated in the January 2026 order demanding an apology.
The court found fault with this approach, remarking that the institution focused more on procedure than substance. “A grievance of this nature ought not to be met with punitive formalism,” the order said, adding that universities are expected to demonstrate “maturity, fairness, and sensitivity” in handling such concerns.
Justice Narula observed that while institutional discipline is important, it cannot override legitimate workplace grievances. “The insistence on channel, form, and hierarchy cannot become so rigid that it overwhelms the substance of a grievance which plainly touches dignity, hygiene, and humane working conditions,” the court said.
It further noted that even if the tone or route of communication was imperfect, the appropriate response would have been to resolve the issue rather than escalate it into disciplinary action. “A complaint of this nature called for engagement, not escalation,” the order stated.
On the question of the apology, the court was categorical: “An apology, to retain any meaning, must be voluntary. It cannot be extracted through office orders.” It added that compelling an apology in such circumstances wrongly suggests that raising the concern itself was improper.
Calling the university’s course of action “deeply unfortunate,” the court held that the directive to apologise was legally unsustainable and reflected an unduly rigid approach.
The court has now directed the university to reconsider the professor’s grievance as an administrative matter, taking into account hygiene, privacy, dignity, and her medical condition. This process is to be completed within four weeks. In the interim, the university has been instructed to ensure she has access to a “hygienic and reasonably suitable restroom facility.”