by Badrul Duja
Are gender laws in the workplace merely symbolic gestures? How can institutions like SKUAST-K ensure that the horrific experiences faced by individuals of a particular gender are not repeated? How can SKUAST-K restore public and student trust if its anti-sexual harassment committee, responsible for investigating cases of student molestation, fails to initiate its work?
In December 2022, the intellectual and academic spheres were shaken by a case of molestation and harassment at the Sher I Kashmir University of Agriculture Science and Technology’s Wadura, Sopore Campus. A female student accused the Head and Senior Professor of misconduct. This
incident sparked protests across SKUAST campuses, particularly at Shalimar. The District Commissioner of Baramulla promptly addressed the matter, announcing via Twitter that the accused individual had been suspended pending an inquiry, with an FIR filed by the police.
On December 2nd, 2022, the accused professor, who held the position of Head of Department, was promptly suspended. Rehana Habib Kanth, the then Dean of SKUAST-K, announced the initiation of an inquiry into a grave complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female student against the said coordinator. “As of now,” she stated, “the coordinator has been relieved of duties, and his salary has been withheld pending the investigation.” This information was reported by Kashmir Life.
The matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee following the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013, also known as the POSH Act 2013.
The POSH Act of 2013 mandates that government offices, including departments and their subsidiaries, establish and maintain a sexual harassment committee as outlined in section 4 of the Act. This committee’s purpose is to prevent instances of harassment in the workplace. Additionally, the Act requires the implementation of gender sensitization programs and orientation workshops to foster harassment-free environments for women in the workplace.
According to Section 2 of the POSH Act, both SKUAST Kashmir and its branch in Sopore are considered ‘workplaces’ under the Act. Consequently, the Committee was tasked with investigating the matter at hand. This Internal Complaints Committee also referred to as the anti-sexual harassment or gender sensitization committee, conducted an inquiry and investigation into the case. Subsequently, it was required to submit a report along with recommendations regarding the alleged involvement of the accused professor.
Section 11 of the POSH law stipulates that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) are responsible for instigating disciplinary proceedings against offenders following the employment service rules. The decisions made by these committees play a crucial role in determining the outcome of cases. The committee’s findings must be swiftly concluded to facilitate the subsequent course of action and establish whether a prima facie case exists.
The POSH Act also protects men against malicious prosecution. Failure to substantiate a complaint against the accused may result in disciplinary action being taken against the female complainant under both service rules and the Indian Penal Code.
Despite the imperative of gender justice and ensuring a safe working environment for women, the ICC of SKUAST Kashmir has, since December 2022, yet to conclude its inquiry and finalize its investigation into the matter. This delay leaves the cause of gender justice in jeopardy.
Under the Right to Information, the author, an advocate, has been advocating for workplace harassment victims in trial courts and conducting gender sensitization workshops across government and private offices in Jammu and Kashmir.
On December 12th, 2023, the author submitted a Right to Information application to the Public Information Officer at SKUAST Shalimar. The request sought information regarding the decision of the committee responsible for investigating the sexual harassment complaint against the accused professor.
The author requested a certified copy of the inquiry report, decision, and recommendations regarding allegations against Dr Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, Professor and Head of the Division of Agricultural Extension and Communication Faculty at Wadura. As per the Right to Information Act, SKUAST authorities are obligated to provide this information within thirty days of receiving the application.
However, in a flagrant breach, SKUAST-K authorities provided the information on March 26th, 2024, which the author received on April 1st, 2024. This constitutes a violation of the Right to Information Act, with a delay exceeding 80 days.
In response to the RTI application, the Assistant Registrar (GAD) communicated to the Public Information Officer of SKUAST-K on March 14th, 2024, stating, “The enquiry regarding the matter is ongoing. The information will be furnished upon completion of the enquiry.” This identical information was relayed to the author through the Public Information Officer of SKUAST on March 26th, 2024, and was received by the author on April 1st, 2024.
The Sexual Harassment Committee of SKUAST-K has yet to initiate an inquiry. It has been over 16 months since a promising student endured a distressing ordeal at the hands of her teacher. Despite this, the university seems inclined to protect the accused, delaying the completion of an independent investigation. The sluggishness of the Internal Complaints Committee has brought further embarrassment to the Chair and the Office of Vice Chancellor Prof. Nazir Ahmad Ganaie. The Vice-Chancellor had publicly announced that the Internal Complaints Committee would oversee the inquiry and that SKUAST-K would establish an online portal for students facing harassment within the university.
As per the directives of the then Deputy Commissioner of Baramulla, the accused professor was charged under FIR, and the case was tried before the Honourable Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Sopore.
Presided over by Mr Adil Mushtaq Ahmad, the Court completed the trial within an unprecedented period of one year. The accused professor was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison, along with a fine of Rs.15,000.
In its ruling, the Honourable Court highlighted the alarming prevalence of sexual harassment in workplaces, often underreported and deeply troubling. Specifically addressing the issue of teacher-student harassment, the Court emphasized the significance of understanding the legal ramifications. It noted the profound and enduring impact such betrayal can have on victims, their families, and the broader community, underscoring the need to prioritize the well-being and safety of students in such cases. [Kashmir Life]
The silence surrounding the SKUAST-K sexual harassment case exposes a troubling indifference within our esteemed institutions. It reflects a failure of institutional integrity, where the safeguarding of faculty members appears to take precedence over the safety of students. Despite swift action by the Court of Law, which convicted the accused professor within a year, the university administration shows reluctance to initiate internal complaints investigations under the POSH Act.
It is crucial to distinguish between criminal conviction and disciplinary action against the accused professor. Criminal conviction pertains to penal action, while complaints filed before the ICC constitute disciplinary action. These processes are distinct: disciplinary proceedings aim to assess the suitability of the officer in question to remain in service, while criminal action relies on evidence for conviction or acquittal, with the accused retaining the right to bail.
Are gender laws in the workplace merely symbolic gestures? How can institutions like SKUAST-K ensure that the horrific experiences faced by individuals of a particular gender are not repeated? How can SKUAST-K restore public and student trust if its anti-sexual harassment committee, responsible for investigating cases of student molestation, fails to initiate its work?
Neglecting laws designed to protect women can perpetuate a society rife with gender inequality. Are educational institutions meant to empower and inspire students to assert their rights, or to shield academicians convicted of gender-based offences, thus appearing morally bankrupt?
(The author is a practising advocate and transparency activist based in Srinagar. The ideas are personal.)
