The debate around the ‘sexual predator’ list by Raya Sarkar has thrown light on different issues governing sexual harassment, and most importantly, the redressal mechanisms around it. The list, which complied in the wake of the #Metoo movement, included names of alleged sexual predators in Indian universities. The list was to warn students of the dangers they might face at the hands of certain professors who have had a ‘history’ of sexual harassment and have remained, for the most part, unpunished. Raya had to keep the list anonymous of its complainants as they feared retribution at varied levels. The list has been taken down from the internet, but the questions the list raised remains. Raya’s approach towards the issue was coming from a place of helplessness and a complete loss of faith in the justice system.
Judicial Pronouncements On Safeguarding Safety of Women in Workplaces
The Parliament of India had passed the “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act” in the year 2013 which was a follow up (law enactment) to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the popular Vishakha Guidelines case of 1997.
Educational institutions which came under the purview of this act were directed to commit to creating and maintaining an environment free from gender violence, sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex/gender. A committee was to be set up which would not only develop a policy against sexual harassment but also dispense justice to the complainant.
It has been five years since the act, and most of the institutions have abided by the law. But the mere setting up of an anti-sexual harassment committee would not help in curbing the issue. The overall functioning and the legitimacy of the ‘due process’ that they follow is what was questioned in Raya Sarkars’ “List”. It had put a question mark on the status, power and relevance of the committee. A look at the existing Anti- Sexual Harassment bodies in three government Institutes in Hyderabad; namely HCU (Hyderabad Central University), TISS (Tata Institute of Social Sciences), and EFLU (English and Foreign Language University), will help us understand the reasons behind why many consider the publication of the names as a necessary step.
A Comparative Analysis Of The Redressal Systems
The problem with the functioning of the committee begins with the very name of the committee. For example at the HCU, the committee goes by the name of GSCASH (Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual Harassment). But UGC had sent out circulars to rename any such existing committee as the “Internal Complaints Committee”. However, the student body resisted this move because this ambiguous renaming would result in a lack of clarity and create miscommunication regarding the nature of the complaint that the committee deals with.
By removing the term “sexual” and “gender” from the committee, it feeds to the taboo around sexual harassment, that it should not be openly discussed. Moreover, it also trivialises the nature of the grievances this committee is meant to deal with.
At EFLU, Hyderabad (The English and Foreign Language University), the ICC functions under the name SPARSH (Sensitisation Prevention and Redressal of Sexual Harassment). It operates through an Apex Body of Sensitization (ABS) and University Complaints Committee (UCC). While the ABS aims to sensitise and work to prevent sexual harassment in the University; the UCC deals with the complaints regarding sexual harassment conducts enquires and recommends suitable actions. This system allows them to function in a more efficient way.
The Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, on the other hand, changed the committee’s name from CASH (Committee against Sexual harassment) to ICC. Vishakha, a student representative of the ICC at TISS, Hyderabad laments: “This change of name has created so much doubt around the actual workings of the committee. There is a general sense of unawareness among the student body about the ICC. We are dealing with an issue here which requires a huge amount of sensitisation. There also exists the dilemma of trust and fear when it comes to the victim approaching such committees for justice. Changing the name to ICC has basically added to the list of difficulties we as ICC face.”
The difference is not limited to the nomenclature of the committee. There is a huge difference in the guidelines the universities follow. The UGC has sent in clear guidelines for the ICC. However, the universities cherrypicked their methods of committee formation and other procedures at their own will. While there is a clear-cut description of the complaint procedures, power and duties of the committee and the Constitution of the committee on the guidelines of HCU, EFLU fails to provide concrete structure for the same. TISS, on the other hand, has no mention of the rules of ICC on its website and is yet to update the same. It, however, has a mention of ICC in its handbook for the BA batch of 2016-19.
This conveys the disparity in the approach of the institutions towards the committee which in turn regulates the general understanding of the committee amongst the student body. This treatment of neglect results in building an air of ambiguity in the student body who are confused regarding the exact mode of functioning of the committee. Is it autonomous or just another part of the university where the panel will look to avoid such “internal” disputes which might disrepute the institution?
HCUs Dedication Towards A Functioning GSCASH
However, the HCU story has followed quite a positive trend. Tinanjali, a student representative of the GSCASH says: “GSCASH as a body has evolved over the years owing to the widespread student struggle which did not let the authorities withhold or curb the power and legitimacy of the committee. It is quite an active committee now which holds meetings on various issues concerning sexual harassment. It has also dealt with cases which are brought to its notice and confidentially is maintained. ” This account tells a great deal about how the proper functioning of the committee can be maintained by teacher-student commitment.
GSCASH has designed their guidelines to include third-party complaints and complaints by anyone who faces sexual harassment within the campus. This is a highly commendable move which is absent in the other two committees.
Hence, one can see that there is no uniformity in the guidelines of the ICC across universities. Every university structures its committee based on its own understanding and limitations. Sometimes the procedure to elect the members is unclear and sometimes the kind of jurisdiction it employs is also vague.
Complainants will definitely lose hope in such an environment. But no matter how much one questions the intent of the panel set up for the hearing of a case, there is no denying that one cannot do away with the system. The ICC does not solely deal with complaints. It also deals with sensitisation and aims at establishing a safer working and academic atmosphere.
As Tinanjali says, “In the light of these incidents, it becomes even more important for ICC-like bodies to meet discuss and debate about the issue. They need to come up with a proper agenda as to how to deliver better as a committee.”
_