Chennai: Coming down heavily on the Pondicherry University authorities, Madras HC directed the anti-sexual harassment committee of the university to hold an enquiry into the complaints of two girl students, alleging sexual harassment and ragging by two senior male students of the same university.
Allowing the petitions filed by the two girl students, Justice V. Ramasubramanian said, “The Pondicherry University shall pay costs of Rs 20,000 to each of the petitioners, in view of the fact that the handling of their complaints by the university has made the remedy worse than the disease and added insult to injury,” Justice Ramasubramanian added.
According to the petitioners, when they were going to the canteen on September 21, 2013, two male senior students made some abusive comments aimed at them. They also threatened to sexually assault them if they made a complaint. On September 30, the petitioners made complaints to the university and thereafter to police.
However, the university suspended them for approaching police and subsequently agreed to revoke the suspension if they tendered an unconditional apology, they added.
Setting aside the orders of suspension, the judge said, “Since the petitioners could not attend the second semester of their courses in full, the University shall conduct special classes for them during the current session and allow them to take the examination that they were not allowed to take earlier, without holding the lack of attendance against them.”
The judge said that he was of the considered view that 1) the treatment of the complaints of the petitioners, as essentially one of ragging, rather than of sexual harassment (2) the disciplinary action initiated by the University against the petitioners (3) the objection taken by the university to the act of the petitioners in lodging a police complaint and releasing news to the press (4) the suspicion entertained by the university about the conduct of the petitioners on account of their membership in the Students Federation of India (5) the perception on the part of the university that what had happened within the campus was a group clash (6) the punishment of suspension imposed on the petitioners (7) the so-called sympathy shown by the vice chancellor by agreeing to revoke the suspension if the petitioners tendered an unconditional apology and (8) the reference of the complaints of sexual harassment made by the petitioners to the internal complaints committee at the last stage, were completely contrary to aw.
