Breaking; NUJS Administration tried to suppress the sexual harassment case; Victim

The Victim in the NUJS sexual harassment case (PA to the Vice-Chancellor) wrote to Chief Justice of India [Chancellor of NUJS] that the National University of Juridical Sciences Administration tried to  suppress the entire matter, India Today reports.

Siddhartha Guha, assistant registrar at the National University of Juridical Sciences has been arrested by Bidhannagar South police, six months after the victim accused him of harassing her sexually and threatening her.

The victim had earlier filed an FIR with Bidhannagar South police station on July 26, alleging sexual harassment, physical assault and criminal intimidation in the form of acid attack threats. NUJS authorities were blamed for failing to act on her complaint. A written complaint sent to the Vice-Chancellor on June 12, received a very cold response. A hearing of the Inquiry Committee formed by the Vice-Chancellor was to take place earlier in July but was postponed to August 20, 2013. “However, the ICC made its observation in an 'interim report' submitted to the Executive Council four days after expiry of the 90-day statutory period for submitting final findings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013.In the so-called 'interim report' the ICC claimed that the allegedly lewd messages sent by the accused were 'expressions of romantic interest and love' rather than being 'sexual in nature'. There is no provision for any 'interim report' under the law and that too without the questioning of the accused. The EC subsequently rejected the report because there was no such provision for it.EC then gave the committee time to file the final findings 'within a few weeks' but nothing has been filed so far”. Says the report

Excerpts from the letter as published by India today are as follows;

The complaint letter written by the victim to the Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam (who is the Chancellor of the University) on Sep 9, 2013 states:

1. There was a delay in the first hearing of the ICC (internal complaints committee) set up by the VC to hear the matter / Committee held its first meeting on Aug 20 where as it was constituted on June 14 and the complaint was made on June 11.

2. Victim says she was compelled to lodge police complaint (FIR) as she felt threatened and insecure that the accused was still at work in office inspite of threatening her of an 'acid attack'

3. Victim has accused the VC of bias stating that the committee that was formed had members who were apparently 'close' to the accused and thus suspected a 'strong bias'!

4. Victim states that the committee members had questioned her as to why she filed an police FIR and that too after a long gap

5. Victim accuses the VC of dealing the entire matter with 'soft hands' as her repeated verbal complaints were ignored (she states that she had verbally complained 4 times to the VC)

6. Victim in her letter states that the university administration granted leave to the accused for suffering from Jaundice after he produced a certificate of his illness by a gynaecologist!