Gujarat High Court condemns GNLU for suppression of rapes

The Court was hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) reported after accusations of rape of one student and harassment of another queer student at GNLU occurred last year.

Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, expressed deep concern and condemnation over the Gujarat National Law University’s (GNLU) handling of incidents involving rape, molestation, discrimination, and homophobia.

The Court criticized GNLU for allegedly suppressing these incidents and failing to establish an internal complaint committee (ICC).

Fact-Finding Committee’s Report:

A report submitted by a fact-finding committee, led by retired Justice Harsha Devani, revealed alarming allegations against faculty members, the registrar, and the director of GNLU. 

Chief Justice Agarwal described the report as “scary” and highlighted the university administration’s alleged involvement in suppressing these incidents.

Allegations and Response:

The report detailed instances of molestation, rape, discrimination, homophobia, favoritism, and the absence of an ICC at GNLU. 

Chief Justice Agarwal expressed dismay at the registrar’s affidavit dismissing the allegations and criticized the university’s handling of the matter. 

The Court objected to the inclusion of Professor Anjani Singh Tomar, the ICC chairperson, in an independent fact-finding committee, terming it as an “eyewash.”

Court’s Reaction:

The Gujarat High Court took suo motu cognizance of newspaper reports regarding the alleged incidents in September 2023. Chief Justice Agarwal denounced the university’s response and questioned its ability to protect students. 

The Court expressed concern over the registrar’s attempt to dismiss the allegations and labeled it as an “overanxious effort” to conceal the matter.

Conclusion:

The Gujarat High Court’s condemnation of GNLU’s handling of serious allegations underscores the importance of addressing issues of sexual harassment and discrimination in educational institutions. 

The Court’s scrutiny and criticism serve as a reminder of the need for transparency, accountability, and the protection of students’ rights within academic settings.