Up to 35 students from Jadavpur University submitted a general diary request on October 18 to the Jadavpur police station, detailing claims of improper conduct made against a professor at the university.
The professor was accused of a plethora of offenses, including photographing female students without their permission, making inappropriate physical contact with them, making uninvited remarks about their appearance, clothing, physical characteristics, and social lives, and asking intimate questions and making remarks about which girl would be “better as wife material” and what size bed she would need with her partner.
We don’t want a case for the time being, the handwritten note concluded the printed application that had been signed by 35 students, both male and female.
According to a student who spoke with The Telegraph, the police station’s officer-in-charge instructed them to include that line. He instructed us to write requesting that a case not be registered at this time.
A senior police officer responded to this newspaper’s inquiry by saying: “The officer in charge of Jadavpur police station had informed the students that due to the nature of their complaint, he was required to file an FIR. However, the students had stated that they did not want an FIR right away because it was not their personal choice.
The students provided written confirmation that they did not want a case for the time being, the officer said, even though the OC insisted that he would be required to start one based on the letter of complaint’s content.
Contrary to an FIR, a general diary does not require the formal registration of a case.
The students claimed that seven or eight of them were present when the OC spoke to them inside the police station. They agreed to add the line because they had previously agreed to request a general diary entry and it would have been challenging to get in touch with the remaining 35 students to discuss the change in the complaint’s nature. The police claimed they had asked the institution for a report on the conclusions of the university’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which is looking into a different complaint made by the students on September 12.
The ICC is now hearing the case. The claims have been refuted by the professor. The publication of any material that could be used to identify the complainants is prohibited by law.
Usually, waiting for the investigation’s results is the wisest course of action. However, The Telegraph believes that key aspects raised by the testimonies of some of the students who approached it should be brought to the attention of decision-makers and subject-matter specialists who deal with such complaints.
On September 9, the students claim that the lecturer took pictures of them without their permission.
One of the students claimed that when she contacted the professor and asked him to remove the photos, she felt uneasy in the presence of his stare. The student stated that he had also described her as “psychologically troubled”.
Three days later, on September 12, the students filed a “inappropriate behaviour” complaint against the teacher with Jadavpur University. As a result, the university forwarded the issue to the ICC.
According to the current legal framework, the ICC has until December 11 (three months) to submit a report based on its investigation.
The students believe that the ICC treated them unfairly after two months and three depositions. Several students who spoke to his newspaper in confidence claimed to be “lost faith” in the ICC.
The deposition of one of the complainants had to be postponed since one of the members was late on the hearing’s first day, September 22, according to a student.
On October 13, the student was given a new date. A mail purportedly informed the student that the hearing had been postponed once more because the “external member of the ICC was unwell” a few hours before it was scheduled to begin.
The hearing that was supposed to take place on September 22 was instead held on October 20.
The pupils felt uneasy as a result of the disrespectful approach, she continued.
On September 22, when one student was giving her statement and another was about to arrive for her deposition, the student claimed the accused teacher was “loitering around the building.” She claimed that while the deposition was taking place, the teacher called one of the ICC members.
The student stated, “After the deposition, I overheard this member of the ICC informing a colleague that the accused instructor was calling often while the hearing was going on.
This newspaper was unable to get in touch with the ICC member for confirmation. In any case, it is against the law for ICC participants to speak to the media about the case.
“The charges that have been brought against me before the police and the internal complaints committee are unfounded,” the accused instructor told The Telegraph. I was unaware of the pupils’ deposition date. The claim that I was waiting outside the facility where the students went for their deposition and calling the committee members during the deposition is therefore incorrect.
When asked why the students were accusing him, the lecturer was accused of responding, “This is part of a plan to defame me. I also testified about this before the committee. Let the committee present its findings. I have complete confidence in the committee.
The accused is in a position of authority on campus, therefore the committee needs to make sure that the complainants may air their grievances without being intimidated or fearful, according to a former university official who served as a member of its ICC.
Because of this, according to the UGC, the committee’s duties include helping any employee or student who “chooses to file a complaint with the police,” among other things, she said.
Under the Prevention, Prohibition, and Redress of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, the University Grants Commission established the ICC.
According to UGC standards, an investigation must be finished 90 days after the complaint is received. The regulations state that the executive authority of the institution must receive the inquiry report and any recommendations, if any, within ten days after the investigation’s conclusion.
The regulations state that the committee’s duty is to assist any employee or student who “chooses to make a complaint with the police.”
The students’ concerns have been brought to the attention of lawmakers and educators through their outspokenness.
One is that, while the ICC’s three-month term is in line with standards, it could not be enough time in a setting where careers can last decades. But three months constitute a sizable portion of the course for a university student.
The hidden cost of keeping the students on edge for so long is that it hinders their academic performance and fuels worries about a cover-up and potential reprisal that may affect their future professional prospects. This is particularly true of practical subjects where professors actively participate in off-campus projects that could have an impact on the students’ careers.
Two, aside from taking the customary — and proper — action of sending the case to the ICC and requesting that the accused teacher stay away from campus for the time being, it doesn’t appear that anything was done by the university to comfort the students. Additionally, it seems that the kids did not receive enough knowledge about the relevant legalities.
One of the students claimed they had written the department chair on September 12 to request the suspension of the professor. The students claimed they had made at least 15 unsuccessful attempts to meet with the vice chancellor. They also sent a letter to the VC as a result.
The pupils said that they had verbally been instructed to go to the police station and request a general journal entry, failing which the lecturer would be fired. On October 18, the pupils succeeded in doing so, but only after encountering new difficulties.
We travelled to create a GD. But it was a tough process. The police initially informed us they could only take the GD if the pro-VC provided a copy of the complaint, a student recalled.
The proVC decided to send the letter to the police station after receiving the request from a student leader unrelated to the allegation, the student claimed. But after a while, we learned that the authorities weren’t going to report it to the police station, claiming that they couldn’t report every complaint that was made to them.
The students then started speaking with the OC.
On November 2, over two months after their complaint, the VC finally met with them. “We initially saw the VC on November 2 and asked him to suspend the professor since he was observed wandering the building while the ICC session was taking place. The vice chancellor and the pro vice chancellor informed us that the professor cannot be suspended because he might sue the institution and win, which would reflect poorly on the university.
“After numerous requests, the VC ordered the accused professor to refrain for the time being from entering the university grounds. However, he was just just spotted in the division,” the student continued.
“We attempted to meet the VC several times, but we were unable to do so. One day a female staff member informed us that the VC was very busy and had more essential things to do. We were urged not to bring up concerns about an older individual after being informed that we had regularly arrived during office hours and he was not present, the student stated.
In response to a text message from this newspaper, JU vice chancellor Suranjan Das wrote: “You may contact the Presiding Officer, ICC.” When questioned afterwards over the alleged delay in meeting the students, Das responded, “That allegation is false. There has never been a time when I refused to meet with pupils. Who is the complainant? The pro-VC initially handles all student concerns. It is regrettable that this accusation was made. According to the guidelines, ICC is conducting the inquiry, and the university administration is not permitted to interfere with it.
When asked if he had advised the pupils to submit the general diary, the VC remained silent. The accounts paint a picture that suggests the students’ complaint has not been addressed in a way that reassures and satisfies them, which is the main goal of any redress procedure.
