Letter to NCW Chairperson, 4.11.2013

Smt. Mamta Sharma,
Chairperson,
National Commission for Women,
New Delhi.

Dear Smt. Mamta Sharma,

1. One alleged reason (mentioned in newspapers) for discounting Pavitra’s complaint was that she had started complaining of ‘sexual’ harassment after disciplinary action was taken against her by the Principal. However, there is enough evidence to show that Pavitra had complained about sexual harassment before disciplinary action was taken against her. For example, Pavitra wrote a letter to the Sexual Harassment Committee on 15.4.11, referring to similar complaints filed with the DU Administration, Women’s Cell, National Women’s Cell, Human Rights Commission, Lt Governor, Chief Minister, and the local police earlier. In this letter she has clearly complained of sexual harassment, physical and mental torture, threats and attack on her dignity, vulgar and abusive comments about her clothes and body etc.
2. It was after this complaint was submitted that she was given a charge sheet by the Principal on 6.5.2011, which is a clear violation of Ordinance XV (D) (On Sexual Harassment) of Delhi University that prohibits victimization of complainants.
3. In an earlier letter dated 14.6.10, to the Chairman of the Governing Body, BR Ambedkar College, Pavitra wrote about the mental torture, giving instances of discriminatory behaviour and harassment regarding non-payment of Medical bills, school fees re-imbursement, LTC etc. In a letter dated 22.7.2010 to the Lt. Governor (copy To NCW, DCW, CM,NHRC, DU Registrar and Dean etc.), she alleges pressure on her by the Bursar to withdraw the above complaint against the Principal, otherwise she would have to face  the “result” like other suspended employees. Sexual harassment is often used as a method to silence women employees who take up issues of misgovernance.
4. In the above-mentioned letter dated 15.4.11 and in other letters written to the Apex Committee, Pavitra had alleged that the members of the College Complaints Committee were nominated by the Principal rather than elected. If so, this was a serious violation of the basic tenets of Ordinance XV(D) and the DU Policy on Sexual Harassment, that the Complaints Committees have to be independent of authorities. 
5. Despite this major lacuna in the constitution of the CCC that was pointed out by Pavitra, the Apex Committee on 16.6.11, asked her to go first to the CCC, knowing full well that it would not be able to take a position against the Principal, who was the accused in this case. Not only that, the Apex Committee failed to protect Pavitra’s services, which it was obliged to do under Ordinance XV(D)(page 404 of University calendar, 2004). Moreover, it did not ask the college GB to suspend the alleged harasser, as stipulated in Ordinance XV(D) (page 389 of University Calendar, 2004)since he was clearly in a position to influence the enquiry, witnesses etc.
6. When, eventually, the Apex Committee called Pavitra for a hearing on 19.1.2013, since the CCC had not even given her a personal hearing, the entire enquiry procedure had been vitiated by the fact that Pavitra’s services had been terminated. There was a wave of terror in the college because of which many witnesses were not willing to come forward. Pavitra herself was at the end of her tether having gone through tremendous mental, physical and financial stress. 
7. What is really shocking is that the two witnesses who summoned the courage to depose before the Apex Committee on her behalf were given show cause notices by the Principal on the grounds of having given false witness against him. One of them was even demoted subsequently. The Apex Committee failed to protect the witnesses from the vendetta of the accused, who continued to occupy the prime seat of power in the college during this period and terrorized witnesses in a grotesque travesty of justice.
8. The Apex Committee compounded this travesty by refusing to give a copy of its report to Pavitra. When asked about this during the hearing of the NCW, the members of the Apex Committee said that they had been instructed by the University administration not to give Pavitra a copy of the report. This shows the collusion of the University administration in protecting the accused Principal, and the shocking erosion in the autonomy of the Apex Committee that could not stand up to the “instruction” given by the university administration. The criminal dereliction of duty by both is appalling. The enquiry report was handed to the accused Principal, who never even placed it before the Governing Body, as required by law.
9. It is clear from the above chain of events that all tenets of justice, fair play, and the legal requirements as stipulated in DU Ordinance XV(D) were violated brazenly by the very agencies that are duty bound to uphold these in letter and spirit. Only a fresh enquiry by duly constituted committees in which witnesses can freely participate in an atmosphere free of terror and threats will bring out the truth. Now that it is a posthumous enquiry, the next of kin should also be invited to depose on Pavitra’s behalf.

(NANDITA NARAIN)
President, Delhi University Teachers’ Association

CC Members, NCW