Usha left in the lurch

By Maleeha Raghaviah

KOZHIKODE, MAY 12. The Calicut University employee, Ms. P.E. Usha, is back to square one, left with no option but to fight her grievance all over again--if she would have the will and initiative to do so. All the rigmarole of complaints filed before innumerable forums, countless dharnas and protests have failed to bring the case to its logical conclusion one-and-a-half years after Ms. Usha underwent the traumatic experience of being sexually harassed on a public transport bus, and the subsequent vilification campaign allegedly launched against her at the workplace by a colleague, Mr. Prakashan.

The spirit of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Vishaka and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others has been thrown to the winds in this particular case. The directive given by the apex court on the setting up of complaints committees by employers to assuage the grievances of women employees at work places has been given a go-by, with the directive of time-bound treatment of a complaint not complied with.

The complaints committee envisaged is to be headed by a woman, in which more than half the number of members ought to be women. Another directive was to have a counsellor on the committee besides a third party such as an NGO or a body familiar with the issue of sexual harassment. This was to rule out coercion or influence from the senior level at the institution concerned.

In addition, the complaints committee was expected to give annual reports to the department concerned of the Government, in this case the Social Welfare Department, on the working of the committee and necessary action taken. At the Calicut University, such a committee seems to exist only in name. It does not fulfil any of the stipulations of the apex court. Besides, a Syndicate sub-committee set up had taken the view that Mr. Prakashan was innocent despite the State Women's Commission and the High Court holding a different view after hearing the facts of the case.

The objective of the existence of the complaints committee was to ensure support service as well as confidentiality in cases of molestation and sexual harassment of women. It ensured a good degree of confidentiality to the victim too.

Legal sources point out that in many other States, especially in the North, a special ministry existed exclusively to deal with women. In Kerala, the portfolio comes under the Social Welfare Department. The need for such a ministry was especially needed in view of the fact that 70 per cent of the cases in courts related directly or indirectly to issues connected with women such as dowry and the like.

Also, it was pointed out that the State Women's Commission was only a recommendatory body with no powers of its own. During the last five years of its existence, the panel had recommended 64 complaints to the Government for action. Not a single one has been attended to. Though an Assembly Complaints Committee on Women exists, this endeavour too has failed to fulfil its purpose.

The right to life advocated by the Constitution also advocates right to a decent existence. In Usha's case, it has been a violation of this fundamental right, legal sources point out. Despite the machinery existing for quick redressal of such grievances, and social correction, justice has evaded her. Such mechanisms were also expected to eliminate time and expenses the usual procedure of law would entail besides that of the usual departmental inquiry. Such procedures existed over and above the normal channels available to the victim.

What was heartening, however, was the fact that despite the hardened and uncompromising stand taken by the university authorities, the issue received overwhelming support from all right-thinking sections of society, including social and cultural personalities.

Following the appeal from prominent citizens, including the former Supreme Court judge, Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, Prof. Sukumar Azhikode and Dr. T.N. Jayachandran, that they would do their best to ensure that a fit decision was taken in her case, Ms. Usha in the larger public interest had no other option than to call off her fast. As Prof. Azhikode pointed out, the election scenario being particularly volatile, it was prudent that Ms. Usha called off her fast in larger public interest especially since her condition had deteriorated on the eighth day of the fast, and she had to be admitted to the intensive care unit.

It is the supreme dictum of legal jurisprudence that `Justice delayed is justice denied'. Hundreds of women in Kerala who would have undergone experiences similar to Ms. Usha would not have had the will or courage to take up the cudgels against a colleague. The majority would have preferred to suffer silently.

Even given the fact that Ms.Usha's complaint was not genuine, in all fairness the Calicut University authorities failed to bring the case to a logical conclusion. This was where the authorities failed totally to implement the Supreme Court directive in the Visakha and Others vs State of Rajasthan.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : 56.1 per cent pass in SSLC
Next     : In search of better roles