Sexual harassment at the University of Delhi :
History of The Dyal Singh College Case - its implications for the teaching community
The University community has been seized of the issue in Dyal Singh
College (M) wherein a lady teacher has complained that a male colleague
used foul and sexually abusive language towards her. This matter
culminated in the recommendation of the termination of the male
teacher's services by the College Governing Body on 2nd May 2006. The
entire case needs to be viewed against the backdrop of the history of
sexual harassment in the University and struggle against it which
culminated in the enactment of the Ordinance XV-D on sexual harassment.
The University of Delhi has had a long history of sexual harassment.
Each case that has surfaced in the University during the past two
decades shows how deeply entrenched sexual harassment is and how
difficult it is to fight it and take each case to its logical
conclusion. The University witnessed a series of suicides by female
research scholars in the 1980s in a science department. A huge
agitation in and outside the campus forced the authorities to set up an
inquiry. The inquiry found the Professor guilty of sexual harassment
which had led to serial suicides. A combined committee of the Executive
Council and Academic Council was formed to recommend the course of
action in the case, but the Professor virtually escaped punishment; he
acquired an exclusive laboratory in the South Campus. It took Sushma
Merh of the Department of Adult Continuing Education eight years just
to be heard. The Justice Wad Committee was set up only when the
Vice-Chancellor was confronted with an issue of the magazine Manushi at
an international feminist conference abroad. This contained details of
Sushma Merh's harassment. The inquiry revealed that not only Sushma
Merh but nearly twenty other women had been subjected to sexual
harassment by S.C. Bhatia, the Head of the Department. In this
instance, too, the culprit continued to be in his position with
demotion for a long time. In the specific instance of Beena Rani, a
safai karamchari in Hindu College, the college authorities whitewashed
the whole issue. It was only through a struggle by a tiny but
determined section of the students, teachers and karamcharis of the
University that the university saw the first inquiry committee being
set up according to the Supreme Court guidelines in the Vishakha case.
In this instance it was the intervention of the National Commission of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that led to the constitution of
this committee. Here the committee left its task unfinished; it did not
consider a crucial piece of evidence saying that it was not in their
purview to get someone's signatures authenticated. The NGO
representative on the committee was not from one having tackled such
cases and it substantially represented the interests of the
authorities. By this time lots of spurious NGOs had come into existence
to find place in the committees on sexual harassment established
according to the Supreme Court guidelines. In another instance at Hindu
College, a female teacher was abused and chased by a male colleague in
the staff-room in the presence of a large number of her colleagues
including some feminist activists. The Staff Association and
authorities of the college did nothing in the case. In a case of sexual
harassment of a librarian in Ramjas College, the inquiry remained
incomplete because the complainant withdrew the case under family
pressure.
In each one of these cases the authorities attempted to stop the case
from being raised. If by the sheer tenacity of the victim, the issue
got raised, the inquiry committees invariably did not do their job
properly. If in rare instances, such as the Wad Committee in Sushma
Merh case the committee did its job properly, the decision-making
processes to decide on the punishment of the guilty often faltered. In
each case social pressures, including family pressures, were exerted on
the victim to withdraw the case.
While all these cases got raised with the support of a small democratic
section in and outside the University, the fate of all these cases
underlined the need for structural remedies on the issue. A section of
teachers, students and karamcharis felt the need of organised
intervention in the issue ˆ Goonda Virodhi Abhiyan (1987-88) was
the first such intervention in this issue. It was followed by the
Gender Study Group which did a survey on the issue and came to the
conclusion that ninety percent of the female students felt harassed in
the University. The S.C. Bhatia case led to the formation of
Swabhiman(1994) which not only struggled on the specific issue but also
raised the demand for the implementations of the Wad Committee
recommendations on sexual harassment. With the passage of time the
Gender Study Group transformed itself into the Forum Against Sexual
Harassment (FASH) which then became a much bigger forum. In the
meantime came the Supreme Court judgement in the Vishakha case (1997)
which gave momentum to the struggle for structural safeguards and
remedies on the issue of sexual harassment in the University. It was in
this context that the FASH continued to exert pressure on the
university authorities to enact a law which finally culminated in the
making of the Ordinance XV-D on sexual harassment in the University of
Delhi.
We look at the case of Dyal Singh College against the backdrop of
deeply entrenched patriarchy and consequent sexual harassment in the
University and the concurrent struggle of a small democratic section to
structurally address the issue which finally led to the making of
Ordinance XV-D. In this case the authorities acted promptly in setting
up the inquiry committee. The inquiry committee acted wisely in not
dropping the case when the female teacher, under pressure from the
Staff Association, agreed to a compromise. It is remarkable that the
woman teacher has had the courage of conviction and has stood up for a
larger cause through her specific case. However, in this case, too,
procedural flaws and the multiple violations of laws of natural justice
and rules governing the service conditions of the college appointed
teachers have put the case on a very shaky foundation. In the long
history of such cases, justice may yet again elude the victim.
Regarding the procedural and other legal violations in the case, the
inquiry committee was neither constituted by, nor ratified by the
Governing Body, nor was it formed under Ordinance XV(D), the ordinance
which deals with sexual harassment. The college maintains that this was
not done since the College Complaint Committee (CCC) had not been
constituted by then. It is a serious matter that the college had not
constituted the CCC which should have been done by the end of August.
However the College maintains that it consulted the Apex Committee on
how to proceed in the matter in the absence of a fully formed CCC. The
Apex Committee refused to intervene. Thereupon the Chairman of
the Governing Body authorised the Principal to set up an enquiry
committee. However, the committee did not follow the procedure it laid
down for itself in its first meeting. Contrary to its own decision, Mr.
R.K. Sinha was not given a copy of the complainant's statement for
submitting his reply thereto, although he was called several times to
appear before the committee. The prime witness was not called by the
inquiry committee. The most serious violation of norms in the entire
procedure is the manner in which the Governing Body finally took up the
case on 2nd May 2006.
(1) The inquiry committee report
was not listed on the agenda. Yet the decision to recommend the
termination of a teacher's services was taken on the basis of this
report.
(2) The intervention of the women's
groups - the CPI M led organisation All India Democratic
Women's Association, the All India Progressive Women's Association (CPI
ML -Liberation) and the Pragatisheel Mahila Sangathan (New Democracy
CPI ML) forced the Governing Body to take up the inquiry committee
report. The inquiry committee report thus got taken up without its
being on the agenda.
(3) The Governing Body did not
seriously apply its mind on the course of action to be taken nor did it
issue a show cause notice to R.K. Sinha after the inquiry committee
report was adopted as to why action should not be taken against him.
This summary recommendation of termination of a teacher's services
added an altogether new dimension to the initial case of sexual
harassment and it poses a serious threat to the service conditions of
each and every teacher, including women teachers. It may be remembered
that we do not have statutory security of service and that the
Governing Body is empowered to summarily terminate the services of a
teacher for misconduct after giving three months' notice in writing or
payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. Thus besides the
initial issue of sexual harassment, this became a major issue for the
Delhi University Teachers' Association as it would adversely impact
upon the service conditions of all teachers. Even under Ordinance
XV(D), of the eleven penalties explicitly listed Œdismissal' is
the last under clause 4A. Further, it is clearly stated in Redressal
clause 4 that for any disciplinary action, specifically termination,
the relevant service rules of the University must be followed.
The relevant rules are in Ordinance XII, Clause 6 of the Form of Agreement of Service for College Teachers :
"The Governing Body shall not determine the engagement of
a teacher whether summarily or otherwise, without informing him in
writing of the grounds on which they propose to take action and giving
him a reasonable opportunity of stating his case in writing and before
coming to final decision shall duly consider the teacher's statement,
and if he so deserves, give him a personal hearing". This
provision was totally flouted. This effectively means that safeguards
against the arbitrary termination of teachers' services in the absence
of any statutory security of service are seriously undermined. Any
worsening of service conditions and more arbitrary powers for the
governing bodies make women teachers more vulnerable to sexual
harassment at the workplace in the long run since it leads to far
greater control over women through insecure service conditions as was
witnessed in the S.C. Bhatia case in a concentrated manner. It is our
experience that because of different service conditions women in the
non-teaching staff are subject to far greater sexual harassment in the
university than the female teachers.
To the very serious issue of sexual harassment was thus
added the overriding issue of the jeopardising of the service
conditions of teachers including particularly the women teachers.
The Delhi University Teachers' Association Executive
Committee meeting requisitioned on this issue was held in this context
on 4th May 2006. At this meeting the entire matter was hotly debated.
At the meeting the BJP and Congress speakers concentrated almost
exclusively on the alleged financial improprieties committed by the
authorities in Dyal Singh College, which in their view prompted the
action taken by the Governing Body against R.K. Sinha. They discounted
the issue of sexual harassment of a lady teacher by R.K. Sinha on the
grounds that the whole matter had been amicably resolved by the
intervention of the Staff Association. Some even claimed that the
charges were concocted. They emphasised the lack of due process in the
entire issue. They also pointed out the disproportion between the
charges levelled against R.K. Sinha and the punishment awarded to him.
They referred to the exceptionally high fees paid to the architect
engaged by the college.
The CPM-led Democratic Teachers' Front (DTF) presented a divided
opinion. While all DTF speakers condemned the harassment of a woman
teacher by R.K. Sinha, they did not agree among themselves on the
severity of the violations of the Delhi University ordinances. Rajiv
Ray pointed out the multiplicity of irregularities followed by the
college in the case and averred that a Œsham enquiry' had been
carried out to investigate the charge of sexual harassment. He stated
that the trade union cannot decide whether the complaint of the lady
colleague was true or not. He was of the opinion that the inquiry was
mala fide as the proper Ordinance XV (D) was not used and that it was
not right to use Ordinance XII; the committee was not formed under XV
(D). He maintained that the DUTA should not be a party to the action
against R.K. Sinha, but it should not be said that the complainant had
made false allegations; proper procedures were not followed and sham
justice was dispensed. Pankaj Sinha also maintained that the inquiry
was not held under Ordinance XV-D. However, even if there were
procedural violations that did not mean that there was no merit in the
case. He suggested that the matter should be referred to the College
Complaint Committee (CCC) under XV (D) and that the action against R.K.
Sinha should be withdrawn. Sanjay Bohidar pointed out the seriousness
of the charge of sexual harassment and regretted that the CCC had not
been constituted under XV (D). But he insisted that the procedures
followed by the college were in the spirit of XV (D). Sanjay
Bohidar did not accept the view that serious procedural irregularities
had taken place as argued by Rajiv Ray. Nandita Narain took serious
note of the fact that Ordinance XV (D) had been violated in Dyal Singh
College. She recalled that the ordinance had been formulated after the
Supreme Court Guidelines on Sexual Harassment at the Workplace. It was
not in place at the time of the S.C. Bhatia case. His termination was
not carried out by the University until the President of India, in his
capacity as the Visitor, had intervened.
Tripta Wahi of the Forum for Democratic Struggle (FDS) congratulated
the woman teacher for having the courage to raise the issue of sexual
harassment in the face of tremendous pressure and opposition. She
pointed out that several such cases of the use of obscene language even
within the DUTA have occurred over the years, especially during the
Shashi Bala case wherein a section of the DUTA leadership was guilty of
such behaviour. It is imperative that the DUTA evolves a code of
conduct for its members. While regretting that the inquiry had not been
held under XV (D), Tripta Wahi maintained that the spirit of the
Supreme Court guidelines had been upheld. She commended the efforts of
the college to conduct a speedy enquiry, which was usually not the
case. However, with the decision of the Governing Body to summarily
recommend the termination of R.K. Sinha's services without even putting
the item on the agenda of the meeting, the entire issue acquired a new
dimension which was likely to seriously impinge upon the service
conditions of teachers. Nor was the punishment commensurate with the
crime. Therefore, in her view the issue of termination had acquired
greater urgency for the DUTA and must be taken up immediately.
Dinesh Varshney (Janvadi Shikshak Manch of the CPI)
supported the arguments of Tripta Wahi; he also raised the question of
financial irregularities. He stated that it is very difficult for a
woman to stand up in a society full of patriarchy and male chauvinism.
At the same time he maintained that one has to look at the background
of the woman's allegations. He asked how was it that after the
compromise, the question came up again. He was of the opinion
that there were serious procedural irregularities and the punishment
was too harsh. He specifically raised the question of exorbitant
payment (6.5% of the total cost of the project) to the college
architect. He said that the mishandling of the question of sexual
harassment can in future become a tool in the hands of Principals
against the teaching community.
Vijay Singh, the FDS member on the DUTA Executive
Committee, stressed the gravity of the charge of sexual harassment. He
emphasised the serious procedural lapses committed by the authorities
of Dyal Singh College, which further violated the principle of natural
justice, since R.K. Sinha was not given an opportunity to reply to the
inquiry committee report, nor was the matter put on the agenda of the
Governing Body meeting. Further, the punishment awarded to R.K. Sinha
was not commensurate to the charges laid against him. He countered the
BJP/Congress argument that there was no case since the matter was
amicably resolved at the Staff Association by pointing out that any
woman who protested against sexual harassment was constantly subjected
to immense social pressures and made to agree to some kind of
compromise. The fact that the lady who was subjected to harassment
later declined to accept the 'agreement' shows that she was earlier
compelled to submit to social pressure. She was driven to seek justice
in the matter. He recalled that R.K. Sinha had a history of using
vulgar and abusive language in the college before and after the
incident under discussion. He mentioned that R.K. Sinha used such
language over years even in the DUTA office. This behaviour was totally
unacceptable. In his opinion R.K. Sinha was in dire need of counselling
services. He stated that by all their violations and recommendation of
summary termination, as it was not legally tenable, the Governing Body
had effectively saved R.K. Sinha from punishment, allowing him to go
scot free. He maintained that a proper inquiry needed to be held.
Finally, the right of R.K. Sinha to demand financial information under
the Right to Information Act had to be upheld.
Two motions came before the house, and in the view of the
FDS both were one-sided. The majority motion spoke of procedural
irregularities, violation of Ordinance XV(D) and financial issues,
while minimising the issue of sexual harassment. The CPM-DTF minority
motion concentrated on the issue of sexual harassment, wanted an
enquiry and action under Ordinance XV(D), but evaded the question of
procedural irregularities and the illegal recommendation of the
termination of services of a teacher. When the DTF sought FDS support
for their motion, Vijay Singh agreed to support it provided that the
procedural irregularities, the violation of natural justice and illegal
recommendation of termination by the Governing Body of Dyal Singh
College was mentioned. The DTF then accepted that they would amend
their motion. Under pressure from the FDS, they added one line that
action should be taken only after process of law. But, they refused to
acknowledge in their motion that procedural irregularities, the
violation of natural justice and an illegal procedure for recommending
termination had taken place.
The issue of the termination of a teacher's services in
violation of the procedures and ordinances of Delhi University is a
matter of overriding concern. It has serious implications for the
entire teaching community, our service conditions and gives arbitrary
powers to the governing bodies of colleges; the committee was formed
just by the Principal and Chairman. Hence, the FDS member voted for the
motion which was the lesser evil despite his reservations which were
placed before the house.
It is an unfortunate fact shown by the history of the DUTA
that the stands of various groups led by the BJP, Congress and the
CPI-(M) are determined not by the intrinsic merits of the issues, but
by the political mileage that they hope to derive out of any issue at a
given time. Today the BJP and the Congress pretend to be anxious to
uphold the due process of law, while in 2002 they demanded the summary
termination of S.A.R. Geelani's services. Two of the CPI M leaders
- the then President of the DUTA and a former DUTA
President and a current state committee member of the CPI (M) ˜
called for Geelani's suspension. The party leadership carried out a
verbal campaign in the university saying that he was guilty of
'terrorism' before the matter had even gone to court. Even in cases of
corruption and sexual harassment, political criteria have played a
determining role for the DTF-CPM. For instance, the DTF took up the
Shashi Bala case where their political opponents were implicated. It
bungled the Sushma Merh sexual harassment case wherein the Justice Wad
committee report had indicted S.C. Bhatia. The DTF member of the
Executive Council absented himself when voting was to be done for the
termination of S.C. Bhatia after due process of law in a situation
where the Executive Council of the University of Delhi was evenly
divided; they were practically absent from the subsequent struggle. The
CPI M record is even more abysmal in the cases of the sexual harassment
of the non-teaching staff. They were nowhere in the Bina Rani case
despite the presence of the current DTF Secretary in Hindu College.
Where were they in the Ramjas library case? They were nowhere to be
seen or heard. It is remarkable that a DTF member of the DUTA Executive
Committee put her signatures to the enquiry report by the DUTA itself
which whitewashed the issue of sexual harassment of a woman teacher by
a male colleague who is now the Principal of a prestigious college in
the University.
The sorry record of the CPM-DTF on the question of sexual
harassment in the University is in harmony with their compromises on
other questions such as reservation for the oppressed castes, on
academic questions, on the defence of scientific and democratic ideas
on campus. Under the NDA regime the DTF collaborated with the BJP and
the NDTF to introduce neo-liberalism, privatisation and globalisation
in the university; they shockingly echoed the views of L.K. Advani on
the parliamentary attack case; sat silently in the Academic Council
when Savarkar was inserted in the political science courses; declined
to confront the talibanisation of courses, and refused to take up the
question of relief for the victims of the Gujarat massacres in the DUTA.
The CPI (M) as one of the three principal patronage groups
in the University has increasingly arrogated to itself the right to
decide on the basis of political criteria as to who shall be employed
and re-employed and who would be suspended and terminated in the
University of Delhi.
The way the entire case has been mired in serious
procedural violations particularly the summary recommendation of
termination of a teacher's services has caused serious misapprehensions
among the teaching community on the issue of sexual harassment at the
work place. Its handling has created conditions which can only give a
serious setback to the struggle against sexual harassment in the
university. We need to stand up to undo the damage done to the cause of
fighting sexual harassment at the work place through the subversion of
rule of law and natural justice.
The Vice- Chancellor has now sent the case to the Apex Committee of the
University of Delhi on the issue of sexual harassment. The Apex
Committee must follow procedures and deliver justice
The issues of right to information and the high fee paid to the
architect are serious issues by themselves and need to be taken up
separately, but these should not be allowed to sidetrack the issue of
sexual harassment
It
is important that the teaching community stands up in acting for
consistent democracy and be vigilant against those parties holding
democratic principles to ransom in their narrow partisan interests.
Tripta
Wahi
Rita
Sinha
D. Manjit
Convenor
Secretary
Treasurer
25 July 2006
Forum for Democratic Struggle
hosted by
www.sacw.net