JNU told to submit report on sexual harassment case within three weeks

“It takes a lot for the victim to bare her life to the public,” the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday as it directed JNU administration to provide a safe working environment to the students who have alleged that they were sexually harassed by Professor Atul Kumar Johri.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher gave the direction after the counsel for the students complained that Prof. Johri was accessing laboratory number 409, where some of the complainant students are working on their research, despite clear orders of the High Court that he is not to visit or use the lab.

On the question as to whether Prof. Johri should be asked to remove himself from the campus till such time the matter is inquired into by the concerned authority, the judge said: “I have no hesitation in holding that… JNU is duty-bound to provide a safe working environment to the complainants”.

Earlier this month, Prof. Johri was barred by the High Court from being part of any administrative committee or taking charge as a warden of any hostel which has women residents.

Prof. Johri, who is supervising other students other than the complainant students, said any other measures against him would impact his students, family and his reputation irreversibly.

“I must indicate that in every infraction of law, there is always, unfortunately, some amount of collateral damage,” the judge said adding, “The administrative or quasi-judicial or even judicial authority, while ruling on such matter, need to bear in mind that the victim, who is possibly vulnerable and weak, also needs protection”.

The judge reiterated his previous order advising Proj. Johri to take steps to reduce the chances of his interaction with the complainants or even potential witnesses.

Justice Shakdher also directed the varsity’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which is looking look into sexual harassment allegations against Proj. Johri, to come to a finding as to whether his conduct is such that it merits his immediate suspension or removal from the campus.

The High Court rejected JNU counsel’s plea that the ICC would want the complainant students to depose before it. Instead, the judge said that the ICC can rely on the material available on record, such as the FIRs, complaints and depositions.

“In case a prima facie case of misconduct is made out, the ICC shall make suitable recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor. Either way, a report will be generated by the ICC in this regard,” the judge said, directing the ICC to submit its report to the court within three weeks.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the students, contended that they had taken recourse to the criminal process as they had “very little confidence in the ICC as presently constituted”.

The High Court also directed that separate supervisors be appointed for two complainant students so that they could take their research work forward.