In a significant relief to a doctoral researcher, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Ropar to restore a PhD scholar to its Chemistry programme, holding that her resignation was not voluntary but submitted under “compelling circumstances” after her harassment complaint allegedly went unaddressed.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari set aside IIT-Ropar’s November 22, 2025 decision accepting the scholar’s resignation, observing that the institute processed and approved her resignation with unusual haste on the very day it was submitted. “The Court has no hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary, rather, it was under compelling circumstances,” Justice Tiwari held while allowing the scholar’s writ petition.
The petitioner, a PhD scholar in the Chemistry Department, told the court that she began facing harassment from faculty members in October 2025 after an initially smooth academic journey. On November 21, 2025, she emailed a complaint to the IIT-Ropar Director alleging repeated harassment by faculty members. In her complaint, she claimed the situation had escalated to the point where she was sent to PGI Chandigarh.
As no action was taken on the complaint. The following day, the scholar submitted her resignation, explicitly linking her decision to what she described as continued misbehaviour and misconduct by faculty members.
In her resignation letter, she stated that the conduct of certain individuals had caused undue harassment to both her and her 67-year-old father, leaving her with no option but to quit the programme.
The High Court took note of the speed with which the resignation was processed. Justice Tiwari observed that instead of addressing the grievances raised by the scholar, the resignation was immediately recommended by her supervisor, endorsed by the Head of Department and accepted by the competent authority on the very same day.
“Surprisingly, without making any efforts to redress the grievance of the petitioner, the request of her resignation was duly recommended and accepted on the same day,” the court noted.
The Bench remarked that the sequence of events suggested the institute was “in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner.” Opposing the petition, IIT-Ropar argued that the scholar had a history of filing complaints against faculty members, supervisors and fellow students. The institute also referred to her subsequent admission at the CSIR–Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu, and alleged complaints made there.
The court, however, held that these later developments were irrelevant to determining whether IIT-Ropar’s acceptance of her resignation was lawful. Importantly, the court noted that the institute had never issued any notice to the scholar for misconduct or indiscipline and had not initiated disciplinary proceedings against her at any stage.
Justice Tiwari further observed that IIT-Ropar had not demonstrated that the allegations contained in the scholar’s complaint had ever been investigated or found to be false.
During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking that if allowed to resume her studies, she would refrain from making complaints through emails or other means and would focus solely on her academic work. Taking the undertaking on record, the court directed IIT-Ropar to allow her to immediately resume her PhD programme.
In its concluding observations, the High Court urged IIT-Ropar’s Director to adopt a sympathetic approach and help the scholar reintegrate into academic life. The court requested the institute to “create an atmosphere” that would enable her to resettle and complete her doctoral studies.
