Justice V.K. Rao remanded the issue back to Jawaharlal Nehru University, telling it to decide it afresh after allowing the students to inspect the records and hearing them. Kanhaiya and two others had been arrested on sedition charges after reports that anti-national slogans had been raised at the campus event, organised to protest the hanging of Afzal Guru, a convict in the 2001 Parliament attack case.
 
The court told JNU’s appellate authority to pass a reasoned order within six weeks of hearing the students, including Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, the two others facing sedition charges.
 
The students had argued that the university did not give them an opportunity to defend themselves against the charge of indiscipline. The students had also challenged their punishment, which ranges from rustication for a few semesters to withdrawal of hostel facilities.
JNU’s appellate authority had rusticated Umar from JNU till December this year, while Bhattacharya was asked to be out of the varsity for five years.Kanhaiya, Khalid and Bhattacharya were later granted bail in the case. The charge sheet has not yet been filed.
 
 
Related Articles:

1. JNU Controversy: University Panel submits report, suspension revoked
2. JNU Students Throw Down the Gauntlet: 20 Students Including Kanhaiya to Go on Indefinite Hunger Strike
3. Lawyers or Goondas? Choose, You cannot be Both: senior counsel Mihir Desai

The post Delhi High Court sets aside JNU steps against Kanhaiya, Others 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.

Ghanshyam Das, a Dalit and a former Research Scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, died on the JNU campus on Sunday, August 20. He was pursuing his PhD from the Philosophy Department of the University. Das, a Dalit student, was also an UPSC aspirant. Das, according to close associates and friend had begun suffering from netal depression, soon after he couldn’t complete his course. At the start, the researcher stayed at the Students’ Activity Centre; later he had built his own little tent in the campus premises, near the 24/7 Dhaba eatery.

That is Prameet Kajal a student from the School of International Studies on his FB post reacts to Das’s Death:Another student. Kundan Kumar wrote about his interaction with Das on 3 April 2016. Sreelakshmi, a PhD student from the university recalled her interactions with the researcher and said that she first noticed Das staying at the “Hut” near 24/7 Dabha in March 2015. She stated that Das used to seek the help of students to pay for his food. “A month back when a friend and I went to eat at the Dhabha, Ghanshyam asked for some money. We gave it to him and he made us write our names and sign in the Diary he kept,” she said.

JNU officials appear without concern about the incident. No one seemed to take the responsibility for the incident and instead passed the buck to the other departments. Newsclick contacted Prof. Umesh Kadam, the Dean of Students, who is responsible for “the general welfare of Students”, and according to him, the news of Das’s death wasn’t of any concern to his office. It was the Registrars’ responsibility to keep track these incidents. When contacted, the office of the Registrar informed, that he was on official tour abroad. The Public Relations Officer of the University was also contacted by phone, and she too had no idea about the incident. Instead, she asked the reporter to contact the security office. The security officer, on the clause of anonymity, said the police was investigating the case.

Mohit K Pandey, President of the Students Union, speaking to Sabrangindia said that the university was not at all sensitive to the needs of the students, especially the ones who needed institutional help to look after their mental health. Recalling an incident with the Rector, Chintamani Mahapatra, Pandey said: “The university wanted to throw out Ghanshyam Das from the University campus instead of looking for medical help for the former Research Scholar”. Except for a few students, no one from the university was present at the hospital when the post-mortem was being conducted. Pandey said that the post-mortem report concluded that Ghanshyam died from “Lung Infection”. This is the second death of a Dalit student in the university in a span of six months. Mutthukrishnan, an MPhil student had committed suicide in March this year.

The post A Former PHD Student, a Dalit Dies in JNU: Administration Unconcerned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Academic Community stands firmly with JNUSU President; 100+ academicians, activists, writers issue statement of solidarity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Said Modi in parliament to the distinguished out-going vice president:
 

Aapke karyakaal ka bahut saara hissa West Asia se juda raha hai. Usi dayere mein zindagi ke bahut varsh aapke gaye, usi mahaul mein, usi soch mein, aise logon ke beech mein rahe. Wahan se retire hone ke baad bhi jyadatar kaam wohi raha aapka; Minorities Commission ho yah Aligarh Muslim University ho, zyadatar dayara aapka wohi raha.

Lekin yeh 10 saal puri tarah ek alaga zimma aapka sar mein aaya. Puri tarah ek ek pal samvidhan samvidhan samvidhan ke hi dayere mein chalana. Aur aapne usko bakhubi nibhaane ka bharpur prayaas kiya. Ho sakta hai kuch chatpatahat rahi hogi bhitar aapke andar bhi. Magar aaj ke baad shayad woh sankat bhi nahin rahega. Mukti ka anand bhi rahega aur apni mulbhut jo soch rahi hogi uske anusaar aapko karya karne ka, sochne ka, baat batane ka awsar bhi milega.

Translation:
 

You were associated with West Asia for a major part of your career as a diplomat. You spent many years of your life in that circle, in that atmosphere, in that thought, its debate and amid such people. For a major part after your retirement, whether it was in Minority Commission or Aligarh University, you remained in that circle. But for 10 years, you got a different responsibility. Every moment, you had to remain confined to the Constitution and you tried your best to fulfil that responsibility. But perhaps you remained uncomfortable throughout. But after today, you will not have to face even that dilemma. You will experience freedom and will be able to work, speak, and think according to what you really feel.The clear taunt is that as long as Hamid Ansari was consorting with Muslims of West Asia and India -“in that circle, amidst such people” – he was not fulfilling constitutional obligations. This taunt, from this person? From Narendra Modi, the RSS pracharak who has held the Constitution in utter contempt throughout his blood stained and shameful career?

Modi participated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, and his government was responsible for the genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. After becoming Prime Minister, with his henchman Amit Shah he has engineered BJP governments in states in which BJP lost the elections, and his regime presides over a vast multitude of private armies that provoke and generate large scale violence against Muslims, Dalits, and women.

The word “samvidhan” or Constitution, is sullied by being uttered by such a man.

Meanwhile in JNU, we can see at micro level every strategy the Modi regime follows, being implemented in our university at close quarters.

Take for instance, the case of Prof Rajeev Kumar of IIT Kharagpur who was selected as Professor in JNU and came on lien.

Prof. Rajeev Kumar was victimized by IIT Kharagpur through a travesty of an enquiry, for blowing the whistle against corruption in admissions, and dealt a punishment of compulsory retirement, by a Committee that didn’t even give him a charge-sheet. He appealed to the Visitor to set aside this inquiry, and on no response, got a stay on implementation of the punishment.

Since 2006, Rajeev Kumar has been using the Right to Information Act (RTI) to gain information about how the JEE exam decides on its admission criteria. After a protracted legal struggle involving several aspects of IIT administration, in 2010, this led to the Delhi High Court ordering the IITs to release such information. Since 2012, every candidate gets a carbon copy of his paper, and the various cutoffs are announced.

Meanwhile, as his life and liberty were constantly under threat in Kharagpur, he moved to JNU in 2015. But in 2016, as soon as JNU started proceeding to confirm him after a year, IIT Kharagpur started demanding him back, saying the stayed punishment was not a settled issue.
In May-June 2017, JNU suddenly joined in to victimise Prof. Rajeev Kumar. The VC cancelled his lien illegally, effectively terminating his employment in JNU.

JNUTA and Prof. Rajeev Kumar took the matter to EC members, and in a rare victory, the JNU EC refused to ratify the VC’s decision. But the JNU VC is yet to reinstate him.

As the JNUTA statement points out:
 

The Hon. ex-President Pranab Mukherjee in his last few days set aside IIT’s unjust inquiry, vindicating years of Prof. Rajeev Kumar’s struggle against corruption and injustice. The question is how much more of a price is Prof. Kumar going to be made to pay. Today, he receives no salary, his lab is closed to him, he lives in rented accommodation, his wife and mother both passed away recently. All because he believes that public money demands accountability.

In JNU, one watches with growing comprehension the blatant subversion by Jagadesh Kumar’s administration – of every norm of accountability, every procedure established by law and statute, of constitutional provisions of reservations.  Academic Council Minutes are routinely manipulated and misrepresented; UGC regulations have been deliberately misinterpreted to shut down admission; in the few admissions that have happened this year, reservations have been given the go-by.  One is aware of brazenly rigged selection committees for faculty appointments, and very strange developments in the admission process. One hears that administrative staff involved in admissions have started asking for written orders from the VC for some of the procedures they are asked to follow.

One watches with growing comprehension as the Registrar of JNU, an alumnus of JNU himself and well aware of the traditions and culture he is working so hard to destroy, as an obedient minion of ‘The Competent Authority’, writes a letter of overwhelming arrogance to the distinguished and globally respected Professor Prabhat Patnaik asking him not to address students in front of Administrative Block:
 

It is expected from you that such violation of rules is not repeated in future.

Of course, Prof Patnaik’s cold sarcastic reply is now the stuff of legend and song:
 

Dear Registrar,
Thank you for your mail. I would like to remind you that I am not a salaried employee of the university but only a professor emeritus, whose relations with the university authorities of any particular time are governed by mutual courtesy, and not by obedience to these authorities. Your letter which demands obedience is clearly based on a misconception. I shall be grateful if this is conveyed to the competent authority.

Nevertheless, the incivility displayed by the Registrar Pramod Kumar (whose second letter to Prof Patnaik does not even contain the routine salutation), is of a piece with the incivility shown by the Prime Minister of this unfortunate country to the outgoing vice president.

We watch with growing comprehension, the developments unfolding in JNU, not the least of which is the targeting of students and faculty who have stood up to these moves. The ABVP students who disappeared Najeeb roam free, the JNUSU President who protested is not allowed to register. A number of faculty with excellent records have been denied promotions; rules and regulations have been misinterpreted to punish other faculty members financially. Prof Rajeev Kumar, as we saw, has not been reinstated despite an EC decision, and I am the subject of an entirely illegal enquiry.

We watch, I say, with growing comprehension, these developments at the micro level that mirror so faithfully what is happening at the level of the country, because we understand fully, that all that is happening in JNU reflects in microcosm, the rapid unfolding of Hindu Rashtra. That the Vice Chancellor acts, not on his own, but at the behest of  much larger forces, not least of which is that shadowy organization that is accountable to no institution or power outside of itself, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

Our student Kanhaiya Kumar declared two years ago that the real enemy at this moment, is Sanghvaad. All of us who oppose this ideology, whatever our other differences, need to come together on this one minimum principle.

Courtesy: Kafila.online
 

The post The Modi regime, its minions in the JNU administration and the brave struggle of whistle blower Prof Rajeev Kumar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“JNU admin will continue to put sense in this small group of unruly students by talking to them. If it fails law will take its course,” said JNU Vice Chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar in a Twitter post.

He said the university officials will meet the “unruly” students, but they will have to vacate the administrative block first.

But the students are adamant that they won’t cow down till the VC meets them. “We will not leave the administrative block till the time the VC meets us,” Rama Naga of AISA.

JNU Students Union (JNUSU) General Secretary Satarupa Chakraborty appealed to the vice-chancellor to “appear” before the students as soon as possible.

“We had made it clear to the Vice Chancellor that he will have to meet the delegation of all students of JNU since all of them will be affected by this draconian UGC notification. But until now, he has not made any appearance in front of the students who have been eagerly waiting since Thursday. We appeal the Vice Chancellor to appear before the students as soon as possible,” she said.

Hundreds of students from different schools and centres of the varsity led by the JNUSU thronged to the building on February 9 night after the UGC gazette was “undemocratically and unilateral” passed in the Academic Council meeting by the Vice Chancellor “without any discussion”. This was repeatedly opposed by the Academic Council members, said the students.

The protest reached its maximum on February 10, completely occupying the administrative block.

The agitating students argued that they were literally forced to take this step after all democratic measure, including peaceful protest, memorandums and pleas by JNUSU, failed to have desired effect on the JNU administration – which is “deaf-ears” and “indifferent” towards their demands.

They said that the new admission policy for entrance to M.Phil/Ph.D made “in lieu” of UGC Gazette Notification announced in December last year will result into a “massive” seat cuts and would simultaneously close the doors of JNU for Dalit, backward and marginalised section of students.

While the administration said that the “students’ representatives are welcome to meet the JNU administration for a discussion, the students, however, declined to vacate the venue unless the Vice Chancellor meets and listen to them.

The students have also alleged that the JNU administration under its Vice Chancellor is acting blatantly under the “dictates of right regime at the Centre”, which is upon “destroying the age-old structure of the JNU which is its strength”.

On its part, the JNU administration said that students have forcibly occupied the administrative block and prevented the entry of staff and officers, terming the blockade as “unlawful” and “unjust”. The administration requested the students to immediate vacate the administration building and let the university function normally.

The administration has also called the agitation “unwarranted” reiterating that the “progressive admission policy” of the JNU will be retained within the framework of UGC Regulation 2016.

“The JNU administration has given an appointment to the JNUSU representatives for a discussion on the admission policy on the basis of written demand from JNUSU president. It is unfortunate that he refused to even accept the letter mentioning the date and time of the meeting,” said a press release from administration.
 

The post JNU to use force to remove students occupying the varsity’s administrative building appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Student activists in the campus are planning another round of protests  against the JNU Administration, which on last Tuesday released a notice expelling 10 students who allegedly barged in during the Academic Council meeting going on in the Convention Centre on Monday, December 26 to raise their demands of reduction of viva marks from 30 to 10, rollback of fee hike and implementation of minority deprivation points. The Administration claimed that they had broken the locks of the door and disrupted the meeting; the Academic Council meeting is the highest decision-making body of the varsity.

The students—eight of them presently studying in different centres of the University,: Rahul Sonepimple ( Student Union Presidential Candidate, BAPSA), Bhupali Kusum Vitthal (BAPSA), Dawa Sherpa (DSU), Mulayam Singh Yadav (United OBC Forum), Dilip Yadav (SFS), Shakeel Anjum (Former Student Union General Secretary from AISA, independent activist currently), Prashant Kumar and Mrintunjay Singh have denied disrupting the meeting but have claimed that they wanted their demands to be heard by the Administration, which they called “has turned authoritarian, just like the government.” Two other students—Birendra and Praveen have been listed as outsiders though the students said that they are pursuing their PhD and are in their third and first semesters respectively. The students are facing an academic suspension and removal from hostel “with immediate effect.”

Not insignificantly,most of the students belong to marginalised sections such as SC, ST and minority category and hail from far-flung and backward areas of the country. The JNU Students Union, led by representatives from AISA and SFI has said that they stand in solidarity with the suspended students and shall fight hard to get the suspensions revoked.

However, the students from Ambedkarite and extreme-left parties have declined to fight the movement under the Union which they claimed to be “Brahminical just like the Administration and the Teachers’ Union.” Rahul Sonepimple from BAPSA  commented, “both the Administration and the Union condemned our protest as undemocratic…both of them collectively passed the decision of fee hike, the AISA-SFI led Union failed to show up for the protest as well. They [AISA-SFI] must close their shops of solidarity and enjoy a cup of Brahminical impunity with casteist JNUTA and JNU Administration.”  Shehla Rashid had earlier in the day tweeted that BAPSA’s “actions were just political positioning.” A wave 0f comments and rebuttals from Ambedkarite fractions had condemned the statement

Around a hundred students had gathered at the iconic Administration Building, or Freedom Square—a moniker coined by the left-leaning students, to protest against the move. The Union was absent, raising further questions about the unity of the student movement on a campus that has seen turbulent months since the February 9 incident when several students of the campus were arrested for allegedly raising “anti-national” slogans, all of them were later granted bail. The students with tambourines and posters called for a revocation of the order and called upon the Vice Chancellor to speak to the students. Few teachers had also joined the protest. After sloganeering for about half an hour students from across schools took turns to voice out their opinions. Birendra Kumar, a student at Centre of Historical Studies said that the decision was an “attack on the
Later in the day, sources confirmed that a section of teachers called upon the protesting students and the Student Union representatives and persuaded them for a united fight as opposed to sectarian protests that are “against the spirit of JNU.” However, an all-organization meeting could not be convened.  

JNUSU later decided for a protest march “Fight Back JNU” from Ganga Dhaba; the march did not see the participation of any political group apart from AISA and SFI.  The Students Union has urged the students to join the “march of social justice” and “give united rejection to al tactics of the sanghi Vice Chancellor.” Till wee hours in the morning, messages kept pouring on various JNU debate pages and groups on Facebook and other social media with students with different political orientations arguing on the further course of action. ABVP, however, seemed disinterested.

Courtesy:The Informer 

The post As VC Expels Ten Students, Another Student Movement Stirs the Campus Again appeared first on SabrangIndia.