The Madras High Court on Monday questioned Kalakshetra Foundation for not having framed a policy to prevent gender discrimination and sexual harassment on its campus. It also wondered how the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as well as Justice K. Kannan committee could function parallelly to probe into complaints of sexual harassment.
Justice M. Dhandapani concurred with senior counsel R. Vaigai, representing seven students who had filed a writ petition with a request to the court to not disclose their identity, that the continuance of two committees would lead to duplicity and harassment of complainants as they may have to keep repeating their travails to the committees.
“Supreme Court says that repeated questioning of the victim amounts to second victimisation. Let not two committees function in tandem. It will not be in the interest of the complainants. Justice Kannan’s expertise or services can be utilised for formulating a comprehensive policy and we are wiling to assist the institution in that process,” she told the judge.
Also Read | Kalakshetra’s summer of discontent
Finding force in her submissions, the judge remarked that all did not appear to be well with those who had been administering the institution. However, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan said, the court need not suspect all was not well since the institution had done everything to safeguard the interests of the students and was willing to do more.
The ASG said, Justice Kannan Committee was constituted only as a fact finding body by exercising the administrative powers of the governing board and to instil confidence among complainants wary of approaching the ICC. He said, the complainants would be free to approach either the ICC or Justice Kannan committee to ventilate their grievances.
He told the Bench the foundation was willing to frame a gender discrimination and sexual harassment prevention policy within a week and also to remove a woman member from the ICC if the writ petitioners before the court had an objection to her presence. He, nevertheless, said there was no statutory obligation to include student or parent representatives in the ICC.
Winding up her arguments, Ms. Vaigai said, the foundation must have a framework in place to protect the interests of not only the staff and students of a college run by the foundation but also that of the children studying in two schools on the campus. She said, it was also essential to have a gender neutral committee since some male students too had sexual harassment complaints.
After hearing both sides, the judge decided to pass further interim orders in the case in a day or two. In the meantime, senior counsel S. Ravi urged the court to allow a faculty member who had been terminated from service to get impleaded in the case but the judge refused to allow his petition and said, he was an unnecessary party to the proceedings.
