The Maulana Azad National Urdu University, a central university based in Hyderabad, is currently embroiled in a serious controversy of sexual harassment and suppression of facts, with the complainant approaching the High Court seeking justice.
Sources from the university informed that a senior faculty member from the Islamic Studies department is accused of sexual misconduct, which subjected the alleged victim to years of mental trauma and agony until she broke and lodged a complaint.
The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is learnt to have submitted its report confirming the harassment; yet, the university, instead of taking action against the faculty member, appointed a retired judge as an enquiry officer to probe the issue further. This goes against the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) under which the ICC is constituted.
According to sources close to the complainant, the sordid saga running into several years involved grooming, psychological manipulation, gaslighting, coercion, isolation, and forced sexual acts.
The university refused to share the copy of the ICC report with the complainant, and the latter’s letters to the Department of Higher Education and the Ministry of Women and Child Development reportedly have not yielded any action.
Eventually, the woman filed a writ petition in the High Court, seeking suspension of the second enquiry instituted by the university. The court, through an interim order on August 20, 2026, had kept the enquiry proceedings by the university suspended up to September 1, 2026, and extended it to October 14, 2026, at the next hearing, giving time for the university to file counter.
The writ petition mentioned that the complainant, who was an Assistant Professor at the university, lodged the complaint on January 23, 2026, with the ICC alleging sexual harassment. The ICC submitted its enquiry report along with recommendations in April, 2026. However, the complainant was neither furnished with a copy of the enquiry report nor informed of the outcome of the proceedings. She learnt that the ICC had submitted its report to the university authorities only when she filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
As per the POSH Act, the employer is obligated to furnish copies of the ICC report to both the concerned parties, and act upon its recommendations within 60 days of receiving them.
However, in this case, the copies were not furnished to either party, and action was not taken within the stipulated time.
Further, regulations of the University Grants Commission mandate that the Executive Authority of the Higher Education Institute (in this case, the university’s Executive Council) must act on the ICC recommendations within 30 days from the receipt of the enquiry report unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by either party.
It is also stipulated that an appeal against the findings/ recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party within a period of 30 days from the date of the recommendations, which, in this case, has lapsed by June end.
However, an email sent by The Hindu to the accused faculty seeking his version has received a response saying that he had “preferred a statutory appeal before the competent authority, and the matter is presently pending consideration.”
He also added that the ICC proceedings and the report, in his considered view, had not fairly or completely taken into consideration his replies, defence, and material placed on record.
Several attempts to reach the vice-chancellor of MANUU and Padma Shri awardee Syed Ainul Hasan have remained unfruitful, while the Registrar, Sk. Ishtiaque Ahmed said he cannot provide the university’s version as the matter is sub judice.
Published – September 24, 2026 08:43 am IST
