PaRCha - JNU - AISF-SFI - 2005 ID-38763
.
STUDENTS' FEDERATION OF INDIA .
ALL INDIA STUDENTS' FEDERATION .
.
19.09.05 .
UNITE AGAINST THE UNDERMINING OF THE GSCASHII .
.
Friends, .
The University EC held on 2.6.05 ratified a set of 'rules and procedures' of GSCASH without engaging in any kind of consultation and discussion with the larger University community. The earlier set of rules and procedures of GSCASH, formulated after a wide debate and discussion within the University community, was based on the guidelines of the Supreme Court judgement on Vlshakha vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) upholding the letter and spirit of the judgement. The very essence of the Vlshakha judgement was to deal with cases of the Sexual Harassment with utmost sensitivity for the complainant and ensure punishment to the guilty without hampering with the self-esteem and dignity of the complainant .
The present document adopted by the EC as the rules and procedures of GSCASH in Its entire tone and tenor goes against the basic tenets of the Vishakha judgement. The different clauses as laid down in the entire document have been formulated with a mindset to protect the interest of the accused and a clear reflection of apatriarchal mindset of not to ensure gender justice in the campus. .
Following are the major set of problems with the present rules and procedures: .
(a) Reconciliation and Mediation: The new document lays down clauses for the provision of reconciliation and mediation between the complainant and the accused prior to the beginning of the enquiry progress. It says, 'as far as possible the attempt should be to explore whether mediation or conciliation can provide a suitable solution of the case. This would be desirable in so far as it can spare the trauma of formal procedures for both the complainant and accused ' .
While this is in complete violation of the Vishakha judgement, which negates the possibility of any mediation or conciliation, it also reflects the bias against punishment to the offender. Moreover, the new document envisages the formal procedure of enquiry as a trauma 'for both complainant and accused'. This logic is essentially flawed because rather than addressing the trauma undergone by the victim due to the act of sexual harassment itself, it is trying to address an 'jmaginary' trauma of the process of ensuring justice to the victim! This process of reconciliation, which by itself adds to the trauma of the victim, undermines the quest for justice of the victim. The provision also gives an opportunity to the accused to go to the court and evade punishment by claiming that there had been no sincere efforts on part of GSCASH for reconciliation and mediation which again serves the interests of the accused rather than the complainant. .
The provision therefore limits the purview of GSCASH to enquire into cases of sexual harassment and recommend action against the guilty based on an impartiaJ enquiry which was the basic vision behind the formation of the body. .
(b) .
Confidentiality: While the new document stresses on confidentiality, the ingenuity of the document is questioned as it talks of complete rapport between the VC and the GSCASH. The document further stresses that 'Vice Chancellor/Rector should be kept informed at each important stage In the functionjng of GSCASH whenever a case of sexual harassment takes place'. While the VC or any University administration authority is not a member of GSCASH, this clause comes as direct attempt to curb the autonomy of GSCASH, thereby tampering with the enquiry procedures and absolutely undermines rts capabilities and powers of independent functjoning. .
.
(c) .
Special provision for Faculty Cross-Questioninq :The special clause in the document says, 'in case of an enquiry against a faculty member, in the light ofthe principle ofpeer group evalua6on seen tn conjunction with the need to permit transparency ofproceedings, afthough cross questioning at a meeting of the Enquiry Committee may not be pennitted ... '. While this special clause comes as a threat in cases of faculty vs. non-faculty members and is a clear-cut clause to protect any accused iaculty member, it is also a replication of hierarchies of power, which till now had not been a part of the GSCASH. .
.
.
(d)Composition of committees and sub-committees: In yet another attempt to distort and deviate from the Vishakha judgement, the document In its cla~se about composition of enquiry committee states lfhe nu0~erof women m.embers sh~u/d not be less tl!an half but_~e as near 50% as e.ossible' whrch comes as an unnecessary stress on the gender composttion of the committee. By th1s clause, a commrttee compnsmg of more than 50~ women member will henceforth be illegal. Such an interpretation of the Vlshakha judgement is loaded with malafide intentions to curb the gender sensitive character of this committee. (e)Tirne frame for complaint: In an unnecessary manner, the document constantly harps on a fixed time frame to file a complaint in GSCASH. Since the Vishakha judgement (1997) does not specify any time limit for filing a complaint, this provision is an aberration of the Vishakha judgement and the established norms of gender justice in this campus.(n 'Minor ' Serious' and 'Ma·or' offence: The Introduction of a new category serious offence is again a safeguard for the accused and such categorization is absolute unnecessary an the seNice rules do not provide 7or any such category. The cfistinction of categories must be accorcfing to the seNice rules as laid down in the Vlshakha judgement. .
(g) Clauses outside Vishakha judgement: The document lays down clauses which are absolutely outside the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Vishakha judgement. The document incorporates a line suggesting communicationlconsu/taUon to VC in an event of Sexual Harassment which has not been registered as a complaint but has come to the notice of GSCASH. While there is no such provision in the Vlshakha judgement, it also has outrageous statements regarding reporting to the Vice-Chancellor/Rector ofany sexually deviant behaviour within the knowledge of GSCASH. .
Apart from above highlighted points, the whole document finds other important clauses which are aberrations and deviation or perversion of the letter and spirit of the Vishakha jud~ement. The new rules and procedures of the GSCASH come as a threat to the sheer existence of the GSCASH and reflect the ulterior motive of the Untversity administration/Vice-Chancellor to reduce the GSCASH into a defunct administrative body with no powers of its own. .
The student community in this campus under the leadership of the SFI-AISF after a historic struggle in 1999 compelled the Administration to constitute the GSCASH to deal with cases of sexual harassment in the University and provide gender justice and equality. AI\ the members of the Univ~rsity community formulated the rules and procedures of the GSCASH after thorough debates and discussions. It was only when a complaint was received against a faculty member that the earlier Administration unilaterally constituted the Ashok Mathur Committee to tamper 'Nith these rules and proc.edures of GSCASH. F=rom the very beginning there were apprehensions regarding the recommendations of the Committee and the then GSCASH Chairperson resigned citing the gender insensitive recommendations of the committee, Successive JNUSU demanded that the committee report be ~ade public and no tampering with the autonomy and effectivity of GSCASH. The ratification of the new set of rules and procedures without any d1scuss1on in the University community in the present form completely violates the provisions of the Vishakha judgement and undermines the autonomy of the GSCASH. Therefore we demand that the earlier rules and procedures which were formulated after prolonged discussion in the University community be ratified by the EC so that the undemocratic and gender insensitive clauses of the present rules and procedures be done away with. .
PROTEST MEETING .
.
.
RESIST .
.
SPEAKERS: .
FORMER CHAIRPERSONS OF GSCASH: .
PROF. AYESHA KIDWAI, CLE, SL PROF. RUPAMANJARI GHOS~·f, SPS, PROF. Anuradha M. Chenoy, SIS GANGA MESS 9:30PM TONIGHT .
Sd/-Parlmal Mava Sudhakar. Secretarv. SFI-JNU .
Sd/-Saniav Kumar. Secretarv. AISF-JNU .
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISF-SFI - 2005 ID-38763
.
STUDENTS' FEDERATION OF INDIA .
ALL INDIA STUDENTS' FEDERATION .
.
19.09.05 .
UNITE AGAINST THE UNDERMINING OF THE GSCASHII .
.
Friends, .
The University EC held on 2.6.05 ratified a set of 'rules and procedures' of GSCASH without engaging in any kind of consultation and discussion with the larger University community. The earlier set of rules and procedures of GSCASH, formulated after a wide debate and discussion within the University community, was based on the guidelines of the Supreme Court judgement on Vlshakha vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) upholding the letter and spirit of the judgement. The very essence of the Vlshakha judgement was to deal with cases of the Sexual Harassment with utmost sensitivity for the complainant and ensure punishment to the guilty without hampering with the self-esteem and dignity of the complainant .
The present document adopted by the EC as the rules and procedures of GSCASH in Its entire tone and tenor goes against the basic tenets of the Vishakha judgement. The different clauses as laid down in the entire document have been formulated with a mindset to protect the interest of the accused and a clear reflection of apatriarchal mindset of not to ensure gender justice in the campus. .
Following are the major set of problems with the present rules and procedures: .
(a) Reconciliation and Mediation: The new document lays down clauses for the provision of reconciliation and mediation between the complainant and the accused prior to the beginning of the enquiry progress. It says, 'as far as possible the attempt should be to explore whether mediation or conciliation can provide a suitable solution of the case. This would be desirable in so far as it can spare the trauma of formal procedures for both the complainant and accused ' .
While this is in complete violation of the Vishakha judgement, which negates the possibility of any mediation or conciliation, it also reflects the bias against punishment to the offender. Moreover, the new document envisages the formal procedure of enquiry as a trauma 'for both complainant and accused'. This logic is essentially flawed because rather than addressing the trauma undergone by the victim due to the act of sexual harassment itself, it is trying to address an 'jmaginary' trauma of the process of ensuring justice to the victim! This process of reconciliation, which by itself adds to the trauma of the victim, undermines the quest for justice of the victim. The provision also gives an opportunity to the accused to go to the court and evade punishment by claiming that there had been no sincere efforts on part of GSCASH for reconciliation and mediation which again serves the interests of the accused rather than the complainant. .
The provision therefore limits the purview of GSCASH to enquire into cases of sexual harassment and recommend action against the guilty based on an impartiaJ enquiry which was the basic vision behind the formation of the body. .
(b) .
Confidentiality: While the new document stresses on confidentiality, the ingenuity of the document is questioned as it talks of complete rapport between the VC and the GSCASH. The document further stresses that 'Vice Chancellor/Rector should be kept informed at each important stage In the functionjng of GSCASH whenever a case of sexual harassment takes place'. While the VC or any University administration authority is not a member of GSCASH, this clause comes as direct attempt to curb the autonomy of GSCASH, thereby tampering with the enquiry procedures and absolutely undermines rts capabilities and powers of independent functjoning. .
.
(c) .
Special provision for Faculty Cross-Questioninq :The special clause in the document says, 'in case of an enquiry against a faculty member, in the light ofthe principle ofpeer group evalua6on seen tn conjunction with the need to permit transparency ofproceedings, afthough cross questioning at a meeting of the Enquiry Committee may not be pennitted ... '. While this special clause comes as a threat in cases of faculty vs. non-faculty members and is a clear-cut clause to protect any accused iaculty member, it is also a replication of hierarchies of power, which till now had not been a part of the GSCASH. .
.
.
(d)Composition of committees and sub-committees: In yet another attempt to distort and deviate from the Vishakha judgement, the document In its cla~se about composition of enquiry committee states lfhe nu0~erof women m.embers sh~u/d not be less tl!an half but_~e as near 50% as e.ossible' whrch comes as an unnecessary stress on the gender composttion of the committee. By th1s clause, a commrttee compnsmg of more than 50~ women member will henceforth be illegal. Such an interpretation of the Vlshakha judgement is loaded with malafide intentions to curb the gender sensitive character of this committee. (e)Tirne frame for complaint: In an unnecessary manner, the document constantly harps on a fixed time frame to file a complaint in GSCASH. Since the Vishakha judgement (1997) does not specify any time limit for filing a complaint, this provision is an aberration of the Vishakha judgement and the established norms of gender justice in this campus.(n 'Minor ' Serious' and 'Ma·or' offence: The Introduction of a new category serious offence is again a safeguard for the accused and such categorization is absolute unnecessary an the seNice rules do not provide 7or any such category. The cfistinction of categories must be accorcfing to the seNice rules as laid down in the Vlshakha judgement. .
(g) Clauses outside Vishakha judgement: The document lays down clauses which are absolutely outside the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Vishakha judgement. The document incorporates a line suggesting communicationlconsu/taUon to VC in an event of Sexual Harassment which has not been registered as a complaint but has come to the notice of GSCASH. While there is no such provision in the Vlshakha judgement, it also has outrageous statements regarding reporting to the Vice-Chancellor/Rector ofany sexually deviant behaviour within the knowledge of GSCASH. .
Apart from above highlighted points, the whole document finds other important clauses which are aberrations and deviation or perversion of the letter and spirit of the Vishakha jud~ement. The new rules and procedures of the GSCASH come as a threat to the sheer existence of the GSCASH and reflect the ulterior motive of the Untversity administration/Vice-Chancellor to reduce the GSCASH into a defunct administrative body with no powers of its own. .
The student community in this campus under the leadership of the SFI-AISF after a historic struggle in 1999 compelled the Administration to constitute the GSCASH to deal with cases of sexual harassment in the University and provide gender justice and equality. AI\ the members of the Univ~rsity community formulated the rules and procedures of the GSCASH after thorough debates and discussions. It was only when a complaint was received against a faculty member that the earlier Administration unilaterally constituted the Ashok Mathur Committee to tamper 'Nith these rules and proc.edures of GSCASH. F=rom the very beginning there were apprehensions regarding the recommendations of the Committee and the then GSCASH Chairperson resigned citing the gender insensitive recommendations of the committee, Successive JNUSU demanded that the committee report be ~ade public and no tampering with the autonomy and effectivity of GSCASH. The ratification of the new set of rules and procedures without any d1scuss1on in the University community in the present form completely violates the provisions of the Vishakha judgement and undermines the autonomy of the GSCASH. Therefore we demand that the earlier rules and procedures which were formulated after prolonged discussion in the University community be ratified by the EC so that the undemocratic and gender insensitive clauses of the present rules and procedures be done away with. .
PROTEST MEETING .
.
.
RESIST .
.
SPEAKERS: .
FORMER CHAIRPERSONS OF GSCASH: .
PROF. AYESHA KIDWAI, CLE, SL PROF. RUPAMANJARI GHOS~·f, SPS, PROF. Anuradha M. Chenoy, SIS GANGA MESS 9:30PM TONIGHT .
Sd/-Parlmal Mava Sudhakar. Secretarv. SFI-JNU .
Sd/-Saniav Kumar. Secretarv. AISF-JNU .
.
.