As per the ICC Rules and Procedure, Rule No. 11 states the “Action against frivolous complaint” in order “to ensure that the provisions for the protection of employees and students from sexual harassment do not get misused”. It further states “If the ICC concludes that the allegations made were false, malicious or the complaint was made knowing it to be untrue, or forged or misleading information has been provided during the inquiry, the complainant shall be liable to be punished as per the provisions of sub- regulations (1) of regulations 10, if the complainant happens to be an employee and as per sub-regulation (2) of that regulation, if the complainant happens to be a student. However, the mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof will not attract attention against the complainant. Malicious intent on the part of the complainant shall not be established without an inquiry, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, conducted before any action is recommended”.

Rule No. 10 states that in case of a frivolous complaint lodged by a student, the HEI may
 

• “(a) withhold privileges of the student such as access to the library, auditoria, halls of residence, transportation, scholarships, allowances, and identity card;
• (b)  suspend or restrict entry into the campus for a specific period;
• (c)  expel and strike off name from the rolls of the institution, including denial of readmission, if the offence so warrants; and
• (d)  award reformative punishments like mandatory counselling and, or, performance of community services”.
•  

While we are not privy to any details of this particular inquiry process (even though the reports we have received of other ICC proceedings provide us grounds for reservations), the severity of punitive action against a complaint that has been deemed to be frivolous are both harsh, and disproportionate. The news report states that the ICC has recommended that the complainant should inform and take prior permission to enter the campus for the purpose of the Inquiry and that she should be escorted by two female security guards. It further reveals that the complainant has been punished under each provision of the Rule. With due respect to the full inquiry process conducted by ICC, it seems that the Inquiry Committee took an extraordinarily strict stand against the complainant.

We would like to point out to the JNU community that the ICC has recommended an exemplary punishment to a complainant, while no perpetrator has been punished to that extent in any of its inquiries. We know that such punitive measures will have an adverse impact on the very process of gender sensitization among the university community. Since under the ICC Rules and Procedures only women can be the ‘aggrieved parties’ who can lodge complaints, such punishments will deter women students from making complaints of sexual harassment. Proceedings on complaints that end up in punishing the complainants may also result in withdrawal of complaints, which will be tantamount to forced withdrawal, and intimidate women from participating in the inquiry process with full agency. Such an environment is fast becoming established in JNU, and if entrenched, shall endanger the health and safety of every woman member of the JNU community, as the only recourse to them will be to suffer sexual harassment and violence without complaint or protest. Far from creating a climate where talk of gender equality is possible, this atmosphere will undermine the tireless participation of JNU community over the last two decades in ensuring proper procedures for gender sensitization and gender justice.

Sd/-
Shukla Sawant (GSCASH Chairperson)
Urmimala Sarkar Munsi (Former GSCASH Chairperson)
Moushumi Basu (Faculty Member)
Kali Chittibabu (Faculty Member)
Mallarika Sinha Roy (Faculty Member)
Srabani (Student Representative to GSCASH)
Shreya (Student Representative to GSCASH)
Bhupali (Student Representative to GSCASH)
Swati (Student Representative to GSCASH)
Chetna (Student Representative to GSCASH)
Karabee (JNUSU Representative to GSCASH)

The post JNU GSCASH statement on ICC punishments for complainant appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complainant, who is a PhD student filed a complaint on April 12 against a professor at JNU who was her guide to the ICC. He was accused of molestation, sexual harassment and repeated threats.

However, as per the Indian Express, on November 5, her accusations were deemed false and she has been barred from attending college.

Vibha Tandon, the Presiding Officer of the ICC said, “The complainant should be completely barred from entering the JNU campus. She shall not be allowed to take up any course or employment in JNU in the future. She should not be allowed to enter in the JNU campus to attend any academic or non-academic proceedings. She should not be allowed to enter in the JNU campus for her personal reasons what so ever.”

These are not just harsh, but extraordinary measures which seem like a way to punish complainant/s for filing a complaint. The ICC rules, though have a provision to take action against any complainant who tries to ‘misuse’ the rules, the provision says that action should be taken only after an official inquiry. Moreover, merely the “inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof will not attract attention against the complainant. Malicious intent on the part of the complainant shall not be established without an inquiry, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, conducted before any action is recommended”. (Rule no. 11)

Now, the GSCASH which has been defunct since 2017, has issued a statement questioning the proportionality and grounds of the punitive action initiated against the complaints, calling its stand “extraordinarily strict”.

The statement says, “Since under the ICC Rules and Procedures only women can be the ‘aggrieved parties’ who can lodge complaints, such punishments will deter women students from making complaints of sexual harassment. Proceedings on complaints that end up in punishing the complainants may also result in withdrawal of complaints, which will be tantamount to forced withdrawal, and intimidate women from participating in the inquiry process with full agency.”

Adding that no perpetrator has been punished so far in any of its inquiries, it says, “We would like to point out to the JNU community that the ICC has recommended an exemplary punishment to a complainant, while no perpetrator has been punished to that extent in any of its inquiries. We know that such punitive measures will have an adverse impact on the very process of gender sensitization among the university community measures will have an adverse impact on the very process of gender sensitization among the university community.”

The statement highlights the fact that such an environment is fast becoming established in JNU and if it becomes entrenched, it can endanger the health and safety of every woman member of the JNU community. The statement has raised concerns about an atmosphere of fear being created which will “undermine the tireless participation of JNU community over the last two decades in ensuring proper procedures for gender sensitization and gender justice.”

These fears have been in the offing since ICC replaced the GSCASH in 2017.

GSCASH vs. ICC debate
GSCASH, a body constituted by JNU in 1999 by the recommendations of the Working Groupd on Sexual Harassment in 1997. The Rules and Procedures were approved by JNU Executiev Council in 2001. The Committee implemented the Jawaharlal Nehru University Policy Against Sexual Harassment (1999) as also the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on the Writ Petition (Criminal) Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) on the prevention and deterrence of sexual harassment at the workplace.

Afterwards, it also implemented modifications as per the newer developments such as SAKSHAM guideline by UGC in 2013. Its rules applied to all students and teaching and non-teaching staff. By its nature the GSCASH was more democratic as it had elected representatives.

However, the GSCASH was replaced by the ICC in its 269^th Executive Council meeting held on September 18 2017 and ICC, which was supposed to have members nominated by the administration, was formed.

Students had expressed fears about the ICC not being a body selected by students and faculty and hence its decisions could turn undemocratic and may not entirely serve the purpose of gender justice. With the ICC decisions against the complainant in question, those fears seem to have come true.

Also Read
‘Serial Harasser’ professor being safeguarded by JNU Admin?

The post GSCASH calls ICC recommendations against JNU complainant of sexual harassment “Extraordinarily strict” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Students in JNU have been in a constant tussle with the administration since the past three days over the demand of suspension of Professor Atul Johari who has been charged with cases of sexual harassment and wrongful gestures by several women students. Seven women filed an FIR on Thursday while two filed on Friday.

The Delhi police registered cases against him on Friday but did not make any arrests. Meanwhile it was reported that Prof. Johari has “tendered his resignation”

The students say that ideally the administration should have suspended the professor right away but they did not do it. Instead, as per the students, they confined six of the girls in a room with the acting VC and tried to persuade them to take back their cases or raise it within the university ICC.

On the night of March 16, the students called for a March to Vasant Kunj thana to demand that police immediately arrest him. However, police refused to do anything before Monday.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (South-West) Milind Dumbere said that a case was registered under Section 354 (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC.

Professor or a Serial Harasser?
The series of harassment came to light when a 26 year old research scholar “went missing” from the campus and a missing report was filed by the father. The report was later withdrawn as she informed her parents about her whereabouts. Purportedly, in an email that she sent him, she called him “characterless” and that he did not have “manners to talk to girls”

Once this became public, several students from the School of Life Sciences (SLS), who had been working in Prof Johri’s lab, came forward to share stories of how he is a serial offender. Allegedly, the professor often “made sexually coloured remarks, openly demanded sex and commented on the bodies of almost of every woman. If a woman objected, he held a grudge against her and threatened to ruin her research career”

The JNU administration, though, did not show any interest in suspending the professor immediately. Moreover, students also reported that they were beaten up while they were protesting outside police station in the night.

This incident has brought back the debates of the replacement of the GSCASH (Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment) by ICC (Internal Complaints Committee)

GSCASH vs. ICC debate
GSCASH, a body constituted by JNU in 1999 by the recommendations of the Working Groupd on Sexual Harassment in 1997. The Rules and Procedures were approved by JNU Executiev Council in 2001. The Committee implemented the Jawaharlal Nehru University Policy Against Sexual Harassment (1999) as also the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on the Writ Petition (Criminal) Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) on the prevention and deterrence of sexual harassment at the workplace.

Afterwards, it also implemented modifications as per the newer developments such as SAKSHAM guideline by UGC in 2013. Its rules applied to all students and teaching and non-teaching staff. By its nature the GSCASH was more democratic as it had elected representatives.

However, the GSCASH was replaced by the ICC in its 269^th Executive Council meeting held on September 18 2017 and ICC, which was supposed to have members nominated by the administration, was formed.

Students’ demands
In the recent incident, students have alleged that they don’t have any faith in the working of ICC and have continued their protest. Students also allege that members in ICC are close acquaintances of Prof Johari and are more interested in giving clean chit to the professor than taking any action against him as they have been publicising that he has “tendered his resignation” Also, as per the students, “. *His resignation is not from his job in JNU which means he will still be allowed to take lectures and supervise lab students. This will mean that he will potentially be able to be in physical communication with the complainants since they are from his own department.” Also, reportedly, Prof Johari had supported the very controversial mandatory attendance rule newly introduced by the JNU administration.

Students believed that this is once again completely antithetical to gender justice and cases of sexual harassment where the accused is issued a restraint order to not contact the complainant any cost and this can be ensured when he is suspended from his administrative as well as academic duties.
Students also called for a protest this afternoon outside acting VC Chinatamani Patra’s house and gathered there in large numbers

Related Article
Gender Justice First: Delhi HC Stands by GSCASH, JNU 
 

The post ‘Serial Harasser’ professor being safeguarded by JNU Admin? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Facebook/Samir Asgor Ali

This was in response to a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by Petitioners from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, three teachers and three students of the University, asking for quashing of orders superseding the Gender Sensitization Committee against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) Rules and Procedures by the Internal Complaints Committee and the Registrar’s letter to put the GSCASH elections on hold. The team of lawyers representing the petitioners is headed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Harsh Parashar of Srivastava Naved Parashar Partners.

Earlier this week, at an Executive Council Committee meeting the University adopted the UGC (Prevention Prohibition & Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees & Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2015, and approved the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee to replace the existing Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment. Petitioners submit that JNU has its own revised Rules and Procedure of GSCASH which incorporated the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Petitioners have argued that it is not the mandate of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to deal with matters of discipline within Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), which is governed by its own statute, rules and regulations on the issues of discipline and in particular “sexual harassment” on the campus.

The petition states that the under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, has no application on students and since GSCASH has its own rules and regulations in the matter of sexual harassment and came into force more than a decade before the passing of the Act, it should be applicable.

Petitioners have asked for a stay on the orders of supersession and for directions to preserve records of GSCASH from 1999 till date. They have also asked for the court to allow elections for student representatives to be held in accordance with regulations.

The court stated that the GSCASH office shall remain sealed until further hearing. The writ petition is filed by a section of University’s teachers and students. The learned judge, Chief Justice Geeta Mittal, concurred with Ms. Jaising, Counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the concerns for confidentiality had to be the paramount factor in this matter.

The petitioners have contended that UGC rules do not apply to JNU which takes decisions under the JNU Act. It is said that the petitioners are concerned as all the records of GSCASH from the year 1999 to present date are sensitive including the records and proceedings of 25 cases still pending with the committee (the inquiries in many cases are against faculty members and high-ranking officials). According to them, any modifications in GSCASH can only be carried out on the advice of GSCASH itself as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The petition also elaborated the important features of GSCASH and its autonomy over ICC.

The next hearing of the interim stay application is on 31st October and the hearing of main petition is scheduled for 28 November, 2017.

Speaking to Newsclick, Students Union Vice President, Simone Zoya Khan said that their Union has rejected the formation of ICC replacing GSCASH. She said “in order to reclaim the autonomy of GSCASH, the union is demanding to conduct the GSCASH elections,’’ and while expressing relief over the High Court’s stay order on transfer of pending cases with GSCASH to ICC, she said “this Union has already begun its fight against the University’s decision of dismantling GSCASH.”

In a press statement , the JNUTA welcomed the court order and congratulated the Counsel for the petitioners Sr. Counsel Indira Jaising and her legal team. It recalled the exemplary responsibility evinced by the GSCASH which refused to be bowed down by intimidation tactics by the JNU Registrar to attempt to compel the GSCASH to hand over the keys to its office to him.

The petition may be read here.

The post Gender Justice First: Delhi HC Stands by GSCASH, JNU appeared first on SabrangIndia.