High Court Directs GNLU To File Affidavit Disclosing Internal Complaint Mechanisms For Sexual Harassment Cases In Matter Over Alleged Rape Of Student

The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee was hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to rape allegations by a second-year law student against her batchmate

During the hearing, Advocate Krina P Calla, Amicus Curiae, expressed her concerns, emphasizing the need for investigating instances of sexual harassment within the institute. Calla sought clarity on the procedures for reporting such incidents and suggested the establishment of a mechanism ensuring complaints reach the internal committee without any manual intervention.

In the previous hearing, GNLU had told the Court that it had reconstituted a fact-finding committee to probe the allegations.

CJ Sunita Agarwal (Chief Justice) during today's hearing, called upon Advocate Dharmshita Raval representing GNLU, and questioned her about the existing mechanisms.

She said, “Student must know the place where they can go and where they can drop their complaint and their complaint may be taken care of. So a method is to be evolved by the committee, internal committee as to how these complaints reach straight to the office of the internal committee without any other manual intervention so that the complaints are not suppressed or someone may not be able to manipulate the complaints."

The counsel responded by saying that she would be checking with the university about existing mechanisms, but the CJ insisted on bringing forth specific details through an affidavit.

CJ Aggarwal said, “If the student is making a complaint against a professor, then the professor may influence. the complaint will never travel to the committee? How will the committee ensure that every complaint reaches you without an intervention by anyone else other than the secretariat of the committee? How does this committee perform?” 

During the hearing, the Amicus Curiae also requested the installation of a complaint box outside every institute, suggesting that it be overseen by a police inspector.

However, the Chief Justice rejected the idea of bringing police inspectors into any institute.

The Attorney General (AG) interjected, suggesting the implementation of a complaint box, but the Chief Justice responded, "without establishing the body what would a complaint box do? First we have to create a body. That body must be immune to all the external pressures, that is the second issue. Third issue then comes that the complaint reaches that body.”

Accordingly, in noting the submissions made by the Amicus the Court directed GNLU's advocate to submit an affidavit disclosing all measures taken by the internal committee to ensure that the complaint lodged before it would reach it without any manual intervention, because the perpetrator sometimes may be also the part of an institution.