Multiple Reporting Channels
Clause (a) of regulation 8 provides for Multiple Reporting Channels as follows:
8. The procedure in case of an incident of discrimination:
a) An aggrieved person may report any incident of discrimination on an online portal, in writing, or by sending an email to the Coordinator of the Equal Opportunity Centre. The identity of the aggrieved person shall be kept confidential if requested.
Any person who feels they have been discriminated against has three ways to report the incident. They can use the university’s online portal, submit a written letter, or send an email directly to the Coordinator of the Equal Opportunity Centre. To ensure the safety of the person reporting, the institution is legally bound to keep their identity secret if the individual requests confidentiality. The aggrieved person does not include general caste persons as these rules specifically excluded then from representation. One sided rule to eradicate the discrimination will cause division of campus and society.
Helpline and Police Involvement
Clause (b) of Regulation 8 provides for Helpline and Police Involvement as follows:
b) The aggrieved person shall also have the option of reporting the incident to the Equity Helpline. The information received on the helpline shall be forwarded to the police authorities concerned if, prima facie, a case under the penal laws is made out.
The victim also has the option to report the incident via the 24/7 Equity Helpline. A critical part of this clause is that if the information received suggests that a crime has been committed under India’s criminal laws (penal laws), the helpline staff must forward the details to the local police immediately, provided there is enough initial evidence to suggest a crime occurred.
This clause is harmful for reputation of HEI. For each and every report received on the equity helpline, police followed by media will come to the HEI campus and eventually the media coverage with defaming narrative will cause the bad reputation of HEI. These regulations are creating foundation of false cases without any accountability of the complainant, hence it may cause reporting of huge cases on ground of mere suspicion. Now it is up to HEI to implement these regulations in their campus or to oppose it on the basis of divide and rule policy present in the statute.
Immediate Committee Action
Clause (c) of regulation 8 provides for Immediate Committee Action as follows:
c) The Equity Committee, upon receipt of such information, shall meet within 24 hours to take appropriate action. The Equity Committee may also refer the matter to a committee constituted under any other Regulations of the UGC or under any other law for the time being in force, if it is of the opinion that the matter can be better dealt with by that committee; or it is required to be dealt with by that committee in accordance with the provisions of regulations or law; or that committee is already seized of the matter.
Once information about an incident is received, the Equity Committee is required to meet within 24 hours to decide on the next steps. The committee has the power to transfer the case to other specialized bodies, such as an Internal Complaints Committee for sexual harassment or a Ragging Committee, if they believe those groups are better suited to handle the case or if those groups are already investigating the matter. Is there any provision to investigate falseness of the case? Even there is not a single provision to constitute a committee dealing with false cases filed in revenge or under influence.
Investigation Timeline and Transparency
Clause (d) of Regulation 8 provides for Investigation Timeline and Transparency as follows:
d) The Equity Committee shall thereafter submit its report to the Head of the Institution within 15 working days. A copy of the Equity Committee’s report shall also be sent to the aggrieved person.
The Equity Committee must finish its investigation and submit a formal report to the Head of the Institution within 15 working days. To maintain transparency and keep the victim informed, a full copy of this investigative report must also be provided to the person who filed the complaint. As these regulations do not give any chance to the person against whom the complaint is filed, there is no provision to give any details of complaint, investigation report to the accused. As most of the students are depending economically on their parents and Indian society is having high family bonding, there is single line to inform about these incidences to parents or guardians of victim and accused.
It is violation of fundamental right of to be informed and to have legal aid under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, a fundamental right, provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, ensuring those arrested are informed of reasons, can consult a lawyer, and must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. It covers normal arrests with specific rights and also outlines rules for preventive detention, requiring advisory boards for detention beyond three months, though exceptions exist for enemy aliens and certain laws.
Final Decision and Law Enforcement
Clause (e) of the Regulation 8 provides for Final Decision and Law Enforcement as follows.
e) Upon receipt of the report from the Equity Committee, the Head of the Institution shall initiate further action as per the rules of the HEI within 7 working days. However, if a case under the penal laws is made out, police authorities shall be informed forthwith.
After receiving the committee’s report, the Head of the Institution has 7 working days to take action based on the university’s internal disciplinary rules. However, if the report confirms that the act was a criminal offense, the head of the school is mandated to inform the police “forthwith” without waiting for internal processes to finish. Involvement of police will bring media coverage causing harm to the academic reputation of the HEI in TRP oriented media trials. HEIs may demand repeal of these regulations or relevant amendments in it to include representation of general category to fulfill the purpose of these regulations.
Complaints against the Head of the Institution
Clause (f) of regulation 8 provides for Complaints against the Head of the Institution as follows:
f) In the event any complaint is made against the Head of the Institution, the meeting of the Equity Committee shall be chaired by the Coordinator of the EOC, and the report of the Equity Committee shall be forwarded to the next higher authority of the Head of the Institution.
This clause provides a safeguard for cases where the head of the university themselves is the one being accused of discrimination. In such a situation, the Head of the Institution is removed from the process. The EOC Coordinator will chair the Equity Committee meeting instead, and the final investigation report will be sent to the person’s boss or the next higher governing authority, like the Chancellor or the Ministry. If head of HEI is from general category, then to remove him from post, rival staff or faculty member may misuse these regulations and influence students from deprave classes in exchange of marks or other benefits. The provisions are itself after collective reading providing encouragement for misuse of protective laws.
You can send a representation to repeal these regulations by clicking the button below
