Trigger Warning: The statements in the website, and the accompanying details, scrupulously mentions details of administrative handling that may be triggering for survivors of sexual harassment who may have faced similar institutional lack of adequate empathy and concern.
Response Statement
To put things into perspective, it has been 510 days since the survivor filed her complaint first at a university in Delhi and more than 330 days since the survivor was reached out to by a CASH representative of Ashoka University as on August 29th 2018. The survivor still awaits justice and has not been told of the action to be taken or taken against Mitul Baruah.
“...the interactions were largely structured around the premises of the workplace especially the defendant’s office and the commutes to and from the workplace”
"Section 19 of the Act inter alia places an obligation upon the employer to treat sexual harassment as misconduct within the service rules of the University. The key difference here being that misconduct as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act is not restricted to sexual harassment at the workplace but includes within its ambit sexual harassment generally."
"Dr. Baruah is guilty of misconduct according to all ethical norms of professional conduct and conduct at the workplace as his relationship with … continued while both were employees of unequal status of Ashoka University."
The action to be taken or taken by the university administration against Mitul Baruah (on “any other infractions”) hasn’t been conveyed to the survivor based on whose complaint many investigations were conducted in the first place, even after multiple mails from the survivor to the administration.
Simply put, since Mitul Baruah has been found guilty of misconduct based on a complaint filed by the survivor, the action on Mitul Baruah consequent to the complaint by the survivor is to be told to the survivor according to said principles of natural justice. It is saddening that the university has refused to take this fundamental ethical, moral, and legal step even after the survivor has repeatedly enquired about the action taken by the university. The “final outcome”, in fact, has not been communicated to the survivor here.
This is again an obfuscation. In fact, the university as seen in its communications with the survivor has delayed and thus denied justice. It has not followed a transparent, empathetic due process as one would expect from a liberal arts university. Instead of striving to provide justice to the survivor, it seems to have taken measures to ensure that an (incorrect) image of the university as a safe, conducive space is maintained, and in doing so has protected Mitul Baruah from the consequences of his actions.
We, the concerned alumnae and students of Ashoka University, believe that the administration’s ostensible commitment to “zero tolerance on sexual harassment” is farcical when the survivor is yet to be informed about the action taken or to be taken against Mitul Baruah and when the defendant (Mitul Baruah) will continue to teach at Ashoka University without facing any stringent consequences for his actions.
We reiterate our demands stated below, and also urge the university to actually put its words and its values into action by expressly and immediately informing the survivor of the action that was or will be taken again against Mitul Baruah.
Context
On July 5th, 2018, we, a few concerned alumnae and current students of Ashoka University, launched this website, with an open letter detailing out a sexual harassment case against Mitul Baruah, who is currently a faculty member at Ashoka University. This website contains all the discrepancies in the due process employed at Ashoka University, and records of the email conversations between the survivor and the administration. It details out the ways in which the survivor was misled, lied to, and traumatised during and due to a delayed due process involving multiple committees and depositions.
“There were some circumstances specific to this case that necessitated protracted inquiries.” - Vice Chancellor, Ashoka University
To put things into perspective, it has been 510 days since the survivor filed her complaint first at a university in Delhi and more than 330 days since the survivor was reached out to by a CASH representative of Ashoka University as on August 29th 2018. The survivor still awaits justice and has not been told of the action to be taken or taken against Mitul Baruah.
Ashoka University released a public statement (click here to view) soon after the website was launched. On August 27th, 2018, the Vice Chancellor of Ashoka University sent an internal mail (click here to view) trying to clarify different aspects of the case.
We write this response to refute the points mentioned in the statement and the internal email because the university’s absolute disregard towards the survivor and to ensuring justice is appalling.
Click here to understand the timelines and the details of this case.
Response to the internal mail circulated on August 27th 2018 by the Vice Chancellor
1. “All Committees that have looked into the matter found Prof. Baruah, NOT GUILTY, of sexual harassment. This includes in total three Ashoka Committees, and the CASH (of the primary university where complaint was filed) as well. In short, four committees have found him not guilty of the charge of sexual harassment. This is the verdict of all the committees, and we should respect that verdict.”
The recent case of sexual harassment against an acclaimed and reputed professor Avital Ronell serves as an excellent example of how our conversations around sexual harassment are reduced to whether or not the words “guilty of sexual harassment” are mentioned in the findings of the committee(s) responsible for carrying out the enquiry. The power dynamics between a professor and a student/teaching assistant, and the variety of ways through which one may be mentally, physically, emotionally harassed and abused are usually ignored.
Firstly, none of the reports that have been provided to the survivor mention the statement that he is “not found guilty of sexual harassment.”
Instead of explaining what Mitul Baruah is found guilty of, the Vice-Chancellor continues to manipulate and project a false narrative by expunging many facts. It is indicative of the extent to which administration is willing to go to protect Mitul Baruah’s reputation and also its own image. In fact, the term ‘misconduct’ has been used without explanation and substantiation in the investigation reports of Ashoka University. As mentioned in point 7 of Question 5 of the FAQ, the term misconduct has been used to shield the defendant.
Secondly, the CASH committee of the university in which the complaint was filed first (not Ashoka University) finds the following -
“...the interactions were largely structured around the premises of the workplace especially the defendant’s office and the commutes to and from the workplace”
“...CASH Enquiry Committee has reached the following conclusions:
-
...it involved manipulative consent on the part of the defendant with the abuse of patriarchal power in the professional sphere centred around the workplace.
-
Following from the above, the defendant engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour given his position in the hierarchy vis a vis the complainant as a high ranking employee of the university in which both the complainant and the defendant had been working…”
“...CASH Enquiry Committee recommends that -
-
The complaint should be forwarded to Internal Complaints Committee at Ashoka University for a detailed enquiry.
-
The defendant should be declared ‘out of bounds’...
-
...CASH reserves the right to review the ‘out of bounds’ order after the outcome of enquiry in Ashoka University is communicated to CASH”
Thirdly, the CASH report of Ashoka University states the following -
“CASH is in agreement with the views expressed by the ad hoc committee in so far as the jurisdiction of the ad hoc committee is restricted to complaints regarding sexual harassment at the workplace as prescribed under the Sexual Harassment (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the rules thereunder.
CASH has briefly adverted to the scheme of the Act. Sexual Harassment is defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, and Workplace is defined under Section 2(o) of the Act. The Internal Complaints Committee can initiate inquiry upon a complaint by an aggrieved woman relating to an incident of sexual harassment at the workplace."
"Separately, Section 19 of the Act inter alia places an obligation upon the employer to treat sexual harassment as misconduct within the service rules of the University. The key difference here being that misconduct as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act is not restricted to sexual harassment at the workplace but includes within its ambit sexual harassment generally.”
“The allegations made in the complaint are of a fairly serious nature and could possibly involve a criminal offence. If found true, it would amount to serious misconduct. In light of the prima facie evidence that there has been gross misconduct on the part of the defendant, but without expressing a final opinion on the guilt of the defendant regarding the incident of February 2017 detailed in the complaint, and in light of the obligation placed upon the University by Section 19 of the Act, CASH deems it necessary to recommend that the Vice Chancellor take appropriate measures to inquire as to whether the defendant is guilty of misconduct as per the service rules of the University and as to what action should be taken.”
Finally, the Disciplinary Committee Report of Ashoka University finds the following -
“...the Committee finds Dr. Baruah’s conduct unbecoming of a faculty member of Ashoka University and in violation of the norms of adherence to the ‘highest academic standards’ and ‘ideals of Ashoka University...”
“...in her testimony before this Committee repeatedly stressed that she is not only seeking justice for herself but also seeking to ensure conditions conducive to the safety concerns of women students at the university”
“The Committee unanimously finds that
-
...the Committee therefore agrees with the findings of the ad hoc committee set up by the CASH committee that the actions of the defendant ‘would not fall under the ambit of sexual harassment at the workplace.’
-
However, Dr. Baruah is guilty of misconduct according to all ethical norms of professional conduct and conduct at the workplace as his relationship with … continued while both were employees of unequal status of Ashoka University…”
It is clear, then, from these extracts from different reports that the defendant was by no means innocent and is worthy of appropriate punishment. However the VC’s insistence on his innocence resting entirely on the mere absence of the words “not guilty of sexual harassment” only serves to highlight his, and by extension the administration’s narrow conception of the many ways in which an individual could be harassed at the workplace.
2. “A wide range of faculty and other representatives were involved in these committees. They conducted the proceedings with integrity and commitment to truth. The fact that a number of different committees and faculty members agreed on the core findings should give us confidence that they were guided by no consideration other than the evidence at hand.”
We have responded it in point number 5, 7, and 8 below reiterating the discrepancies in the due process, and questioning the university’s claim of commitment to the truth and having acted with integrity.
3. “Any other infractions, not relating to sexual harassment, were dealt with as per Ashoka University Norms.”
The action to be taken or taken by the university administration against Mitul Baruah (on “any other infractions”) hasn’t been conveyed to the survivor based on whose complaint many investigations were conducted in the first place, even after multiple mails from the survivor to the administration.
This goes against principles of natural justice which has been elaborated in point number 4 below.
Response to the public statement released
4. “The case has been decided and the final outcome was communicated to the parties concerned a few days ago.”
Time and again, the university has toyed with semantics in order to couch its disregard and lack of empathy towards the survivor. As mentioned in the timeline, the last communication with the survivor was by a Disciplinary Committee member of Ashoka University. The survivor was told that “Ashoka University, after due process, has found Mitul Baruah not guilty of sexual harassment. So the question of “action” consequent to your [survivor’s] complaint and informing you of the same does not arise”.
However, the Disciplinary Committee report based on the complaint filed by the survivor found Mitul Baruah “guilty of misconduct according to all ethical norms of professional misconduct and conduct at workplace”.
Principles of natural justice are of prime importance when it comes to a quasi-judicial body like the Disciplinary Committee of Ashoka University. The rules of natural justice, as we know, are not codified anywhere; they are procedural in nature and their aim is to ensure delivery of justice to both the parties. While legal justice is based on technicalities of law that follow the procedure established by law, principles of natural justice are analogous to the principles of equity and fairness.
Simply put, since Mitul Baruah has been found guilty of misconduct based on a complaint filed by the survivor, the action on Mitul Baruah consequent to the complaint by the survivor is to be told to the survivor according to said principles of natural justice. It is saddening that the university has refused to take this fundamental ethical, moral, and legal step even after the survivor has repeatedly enquired about the action taken by the university. The “final outcome”, in fact, has not been communicated to the survivor here.
5. “Ashoka has adjudicated this case with the highest standards of integrity, due process and fairness. We are deeply grateful to all members of the different committees involved in examining various aspects of this case as thoroughly as possible, and for showing the highest regard for justice.”
We have listed all the discrepancies regarding the due process employed by Ashoka University under Question 5 of the FAQ.
The false hope provided by the administration to the survivor throughout the due process is distressing, as seen in the email conversations between the administration and the survivor. For instance, the university promised her that an action taken will be taken against Mitul Baruah after a particular Board Meeting, only to have her come all the way to the university and collect a copy of the Disciplinary Committee report after two and a half months of it being signed by the members. On the same day, the administration also failed to ensure that the survivor and Mitul Baruah don’t come into contact with each other thereby causing immense trauma to the survivor.
One has to question the standards of integrity and fairness employed in this case when the ad-hoc committee of Ashoka University did not request the survivor to furnish any evidence or a list of witnesses before her deposition. The survivor was also not provided a chance to comment on the CASH report before it was finalised. There is little to no clarity on the meaning of the term “misconduct” in the reports which seems to overlook many aspects of the CASH report of the previous university as mentioned in point 7 of Question 5 in the FAQ, While on the one hand there was disregard to its own CASH policy, on the other, the university, in its communication equated the survivor’s trauma with its own wait for the completion of the due process as seen in point 8 of Question 5 in the FAQ based on the email conversations that we have access to.
6. “We strongly advise that all material appearing in the public domain be treated with due caution, as a lot of it seems to be based on unsubstantiated speculation, or very selectively leaked materials.”
We strongly request Ashoka University to pinpoint what they believe to be “unsubstantiated speculation” and “selectively leaked materials” in the website and we would be happy to respond to such claims. We have quoted the statements verbatim from the CASH reports and Disciplinary Committee report where required. We also have in possession all of the email conversations between the survivor and the administration which we have detailed out in this timeline.
We have not released the reports on a public forum in order to protect the survivor from eventual, and many a time, inevitable shaming and vilification, and to ensure that the discussion is focused on the findings of the reports instead of on the particular incidents of sexual harassment and abuse of power.
7. “Ashoka is deeply committed to zero tolerance on sexual harassment.”
a. On 12/06/2018, an RTI was filed by an alumnus of Ashoka University recently, posing the following question to the UGC -
“Please provide all the annual status reports filed by Ashoka University established under the Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 as per Section 3.1 (q) of University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition, and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015.”
b. According to the the Sexual Harassment Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and the UGC (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015, it is mandatory for places of work with more than 15 employees to have an Internal Complaint Committee (ICC). The ICC of Ashoka University was only constituted on April 24th 2018, four years after it was founded.
c. Recently, the administration of Ashoka University convened a meeting with the Student Government of Ashoka University and Alumni representatives regarding this case. An excerpt (click here for Alumni-Admin Conversations) from the minutes of this meeting is as follows -
Question posed to the university admin:
“What is the punishment that Mitul Baruah has received?”
Response stated in the minutes:
“The question assumes the charges laid against Prof. Baruah are true. We cannot know the exact events due to confidentiality. However, certain key findings were communicated to us without breaking the bounds of confidentiality. According to this new information, we are confident that none of the actions that the University might take or has taken with regards to Prof. Barua's employment needs to be in the public forum.”
It is worrisome that students and alumni also co-opt and reiterate the administrative rhetoric on confidentiality, which in this case apparently supersedes a) the obligation of the university to convey the action taken against Mitul Baruah to the survivor as per principles of natural justice and b) its ethical responsibility to reflect on the discrepancies in the due process.
Thus, it is clear that the university’s policy of “zero tolerance” amounts to mere words. While the university may have taken certain steps to act in this direction, as seen in many cases of sexual harassment handled previously in the world, the way in which this particular case was handled clearly manifests the internalised patriarchy of the university administration and the members of the CASH, which in most cases is not reflected upon.
8. “Any opinion prejudging the matter without regard to the full evidence or due process does not serve the cause of justice, and hence baseless speculation should be avoided at all costs.”
This is again an obfuscation. In fact, the university as seen in its communications with the survivor has delayed and thus denied justice. It has not followed a transparent, empathetic due process as one would expect from a liberal arts university. Instead of striving to provide justice to the survivor, it seems to have taken measures to ensure that an (incorrect) image of the university as a safe, conducive space is maintained, and in doing so has protected Mitul Baruah from the consequences of his actions.
We, the concerned alumnae and students of Ashoka University, believe that the administration’s ostensible commitment to “zero tolerance on sexual harassment” is farcical when the survivor is yet to be informed about the action taken or to be taken against Mitul Baruah and when the defendant will continue to teach at Ashoka University without facing any stringent action or consequences.
We reiterate our demands stated below, and also urge the university to actually put its words and its values into action by expressly and immediately informing the survivor of the action that was or will be taken again against Mitul Baruah.
Firstly, none of the reports that have been provided to the survivor mention the statement that he is “not found guilty of sexual harassment.”
"...it involved manipulative consent on the part of the defendant with the abuse of patriarchal power in the professional sphere centred around the workplace."
It is clear, then, from these extracts from different reports that the defendant was by no means innocent and is worthy of appropriate punishment. However the VC’s insistence on his innocence resting entirely on the mere absence of the words “not guilty of sexual harassment” only serves to highlight his, and by extension the administration’s narrow conception of the many ways in which an individual could be harassed at the workplace.
We strongly request Ashoka University to pinpoint what they believe to be “unsubstantiated speculation” and “selectively leaked materials” in the website and we would be happy to respond to such claims. We have quoted the statements verbatim from the CASH reports and Disciplinary Committee report where required. We also have in possession all of the email conversations between the survivor and the administration which we have detailed out in this timeline.
It is worrisome that students and alumni also co-opt and reiterate the administrative rhetoric on confidentiality, which in this case apparently supersedes a) the obligation of the university to convey the action taken against Mitul Baruah to the survivor as per principles of natural justice and b) its ethical responsibility to reflect on the discrepancies in the due process.
We want the university to acknowledge its power in this dynamic. We strongly urge the CASH, the Disciplinary Committee (formed by the Board of Management) and the administration of Ashoka University to:
1. Take strict and punitive action against Mitul Baruah based on the service rules of the university. We believe that the findings of multiple reports lay down grounds for the same.
2. Provide full clarity on the handling of this case and on functioning of the due processes by answering all the questions raised in this open letter and Question 5 of the FAQ in writing.
3. Make reparations to the survivor for the systemic delays that inflicted further mental distress on to her and an unconditional apology to the survivor.
The survivor trusted Ashoka’s due process and proceeded to file a complaint with CASH. Time and again the university has failed to adequately inform the survivor over the progress of the investigation, which has only left the survivor hanging with anticipation and hope, inflicting further emotional distress. The survivor has also not been informed of the internal action taken by the university.
4. Ensure that any future complainants and defendants are provided access to counselling services (with a counselor of the survivor’s choosing) and incorporate the same in the latest CASH policy of Ashoka University.
5. Ensure that no other survivor that approaches CASH has to wait for over 9 months for an internal investigation to conclude. Moving forward, we urge the university to follow the highest standards when investigating cases of sexual harassment/misconduct and ensure that any investigation is indeed completed in 90 days and acted upon within 30 days of the report as mandated by the latest Ashoka CASH policy.
6. Try its best to expand its ambit on dealing with sexual harassment cases, by reflecting on its moral, ethical, and legal responsibility and understanding the true essence of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013, which is to provide for a safe atmosphere within the university, free from sexual harassment and abuse of power.