The Instagram account ‘Seven Angry Women’ stirred controversy at GNLU-Gujarat National Law University by shedding light on various issues. Following anonymous posts detailing allegations of rape, hate speech, and queerphobia among students, the Gujarat High Court has initiated a ‘high-level inquiry’ into the university’s affairs and faculty.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Gujarat: Two anonymous posts, purportedly by two Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) students, have now escalated into the Gujarat High Court calling for a “high-level inquiry” into the affairs of the college and its faculty.
The posts, published on an Instagram page, Seven Angry Women, 19 September 2023, referred to the students as “vocal victim #54” and “vocal victim #55”.
“I am in 2nd year GNLU, I was raped by my own batchmate,”
-one post starts.
“Hi, am from GNLU (he/they) over the past few months here I have been subjected to a lot of hate speech and homophobia among the university campus (sic),”
-reads the first paragraph of another post.
A student, speaking anonymously, revealed that within two hours of the posts, the entire college became aware of them. Late on the night of September 19, nearly 200-300 students in the girls’ hostel gathered to discuss the posts.
They even wore pink to classes in solidarity with the victims. However, the institute formed a fact-finding committee to investigate the incident much later, a day after the Gujarat High Court took suo motu cognizance of a report by Ahmedabad Mirror about the posts on September 25, 2023.
In recent months, the high court has criticized the college authorities for their lack of action. Upon acknowledging the posts, the high court highlighted the news report-
“does not suggest any action taken by the administration for want of formal complaint, which in our opinion would not be a correct approach”.
When the fact-finding committee constituted by the college finally submitted its report in a sealed cover to the high court late last month, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee called the revelations “scary”.
“And the involvement of the GNLU administration, suppressing the whole incident…. and this is not two incidents… incidents of molestation, rape, discrimination, homophobia, favouritism, suppression of voices, lack of existence of internal complaint committee (ICC), lack of information to the students about ICC,” the bench
“If students of law, their voices are suppressed, who will speak in the country?… We are all responsible for this situation…This requires high-level inquiry into the affairs of GNLU and its faculty,”
-it added.
Attempt to weaken the issue with apprehension
One of the Instagram posts on 19 September spoke of a student’s experience of queerphobia, and mentioned “hatred” that the student had been subjected to.
“All this happened in a tier 1 law school, there is no grievance redress mechanism where I can take this up, there are near to no resources I can avail, & as always I cried a bit about my situation and how helpless & suffocated I feel being here, but as always didn’t really had any escape, so cried and went back to sleep,”
-it said.
The other post alleged that the student was assaulted on campus by a batchmate, who also took objectionable videos of her and threatened her.
A day after the high court took cognizance of the article mentioning the posts, GNLU sprung into action. On 26 September, it set up a fact-finding committee headed by retired IPS and former Gujarat DGP Keshav Kumar. On 27 September, an email was sent out to all the students, informing them about the constitution of this committee.
“The Fact-Finding Committee is dedicated to ensuring a safe and confidential platform for students to share their insights or experiences,”
it added.
On 30 September, another email by the Registrar, said that any female student may make a statement related to the news article to Prof. Tomar by meeting her in person, on or before 5 October 2023. It promised the students that
“the statements will be recorded by maintaining total confidentiality”.
When the case came up in October, the high court lashed out at the Registrar, saying that an affidavit filed by him on 9 September 2023
“seems to be an overt anxious effort to dilute the whole matter by making inquiries in a summary way”.
The order noted that the affidavit said there does not appear to be any substance in the anonymous post quoted in the Ahmedabad Mirror news article. The order said that the court is taking “strong exception” to the Registrar’s stand in the affidavit.
The Registrar admitted in his affidavit that he had received messages on WhatsApp on 19 September from one of the assistant professors, as well as from the warden of the girls hostel, about the Instagram post, the court order said.
Attempt to conceal
The court added that the Registrar’s affidavit also had two reports attached to it. One such report was submitted by the warden claiming that she interviewed more than 80 students in the girls hostel, but none of them had any information about the alleged incident.
Another report was submitted by Prof. Tomar, who told the Registrar
“in one line that no student came to meet her or deposed in relation to the email circulated by the Registrar”.
In October, the high court order also noted that Prof. Tomar was made a part of the panel, despite the fact that she submitted a report on 7 October 2023 “dismissing the whole incident”.
The court was clear. It said that “we strongly disapprove” of the manner in which the institute is dealing with the allegations, and “more so, the manner in which, the Registrar, Gujarat National Law University has acted on receipt of the report of the incident on 19.09.2023.”
“It seems that the University Authorities are making effort to cover up the whole issue, to save the image of the institution,”
the court observed, noting that the complainant had still not been identified, and that the professor writing that no student had come to depose
“reflects the insensitivity of the university authorities”.
During the hearing on 11 October, the lawyer appearing for GNLU informed the court that he would personally look into the matter in his capacity as the Gujarat advocate general to ensure that the the fact-finding panel is reconstituted with
“independent respectable members of the society having no concern with the institution at all”.
The investigative committee, initially formed by the institution on September 26, was subsequently reorganized on October 20.
According to an email from the registrar sent to the students on October 20, the revised panel includes former Gujarat high court judge Justice Harsha Devani, secretary of the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission Bhargavi Das, and Associate Professor at the National Forensic Sciences University Surbhi Mathur.
After nearly four months, the committee’s findings were submitted to the court in a sealed envelope on February 22, and it was unveiled on February 28.
Decrease in trust
During proceedings in November of the preceding year, it was brought to the court’s attention that Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) had implemented measures to educate students on gender-related issues and had adopted a “zero tolerance policy” towards any form of sexual harassment or violation of student dignity.
Correspondence records reveal that the university arranged a lecture focusing on gender sensitization and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act on September 23. Additionally, a “half-day capacity-building program” on the same act was conducted on February 16, in collaboration with the Gender Resource Centre of the Department of Women and Child Development, Gujarat. These training sessions were held for all students in batches, with the final session concluding on March 2.
Commenting on the aftermath of the incident, a student remarked,
“The trust has of course gone down since the incident… The POSH sessions are being held now, but this incident dates back to the last semester. Every Monday, we get a mandatory 70 percent attendance reminder. Why can’t the faculty send email reminders on ragging or harassment?”
Another student expressed dissatisfaction with the university’s response, stating,
“The college did not handle it very well.”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of This Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
