Regarding CASH - discussion with Vasanthi Ma'am

[Shreya Bose]

Hey,

Please find attached the policy and the code (with changes made by Vasanthi Ma'am). 

I am noting down the issues that Ma'am highlighted in today's meeting:

1.Are we looking at three processes of dispute resolution [ formal complaint, mediation, R.J] or four [that is inclusive of the aforementioned 3 and shuttle mediation]? Also should shuttle mediation form a part of mediation? Either way we should clearly state the number of processes and their details in the beginning of the code.

2. We must make it mandatory for University Authorities to forward all complaints to the committee.

3. Replace 'forced confinement' as we don't see it as a possibility and delineate the various procedures for complaint - committee taking action suo motto; referral by university authorities.

4. Deliberation on the expansive definition of sexual harassment- maybe instead of detailing out all possibilities, the wording should be "shall include but not be confined to the 2012 bill' or something similar. 

However as we want to introduce a gender neutral code, we need to explore the difficulties in drafting the definition clause and address it accordingly.

Definition should also include cyber crimes.

5. 'Outside counselor' as mentioned in the selection committee and in the sexual harassment committee should not be the same person - this should be provided explicitly.

6. Put 'teaching practices' into the policy instead of the code.

7. Identifying which penalty is applicable under which process (no detail description needed). The description on circle process can be a part of the policy.

8. The policy should address gender discrimination in our University along with sexual harassment. For instance ensuring gender parity and improving gender balance in all bodies and offices in the University.

[NOTE: The tone of the draft code should be precise and the provisions well thought out.] There were other things I noted down, which we can discuss when we meet. Please have a look at the revised policy and the draft code.

Please use this mail as a thread to respond. Rupali and Priyank please do mention any further observations made by Ma'am or issues discussed in your meeting with her. 

We have a deadline of a week, so should try and start working on it asap. I understand some of you have paper submissions. So maybe we could work out something.

Best,

Shreya

[Shreya Bose]

Kritika did I miss out anything? 

[Rupali Samuel]

Thanks Shreya!

I've asked Mihira whether we can debate some clauses with her. She said, sure. So is anyone free, interested in meeting her tom? Otherwise I can put together the comments she has made. Just a point of reminder- MIhira was on the Justice Verma Committee and worked on sexual harassment among other things.

On 24 July 2013 01:59, Shreya Bose <shreya.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Rupali Francesca Samuel

Editor-in-Chief, Nalsar Student Law Review

Batch of 2015

NALSAR University of Law

Hyderabad.

Ph: +91-9676194764

[Rupali Samuel]

Meeting Mihira at 10 am now. Anyone interested could join at PBS Shanker Rao's previous faculty chambers (now used by Malavika)

[Priyank Dwivedi]

Where are the attachments?

--

Priyank Dwivedi

IV year Student

B.A. LLB (Hons.) Class of 2015

NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

+919542706264 (Hyd)

[Shreya Bose]

Oh! sorry I must have missed out the attachments. Rupali how was your meeting with Mihira?

[anees backer]

Hey everyone,

PFA a modified version of the current draft with amendments suggested at the open house we held last semester and also some of the issues that Vasanthi ma'am highlighted. I've tracked the changes so you can view them in the markup. I've also attached the document containing suggestions at the open house and highlighted the ones I have incorporated into the draft. I've tried to provide comments and notes with regard to the rest of the suggestions because I found I couldn't devise a way to put them in the draft without first deliberating.

If I may, I think we should stick to mediation and the circles procedure for the RJ procedures. We put shuttle mediation in the draft because it was novel and we wanted to have more options when we discussed the draft. However, it has not been used in the context of sexual harassment anywhere in the world, so I think we can chuck it safely. Also, I think too much choice with respect to procedure makes the draft unwieldy.

Now I am not sure if the Sexual Harrassment at Workplace Bill has been notified, but if yes, then the CASH will also be carrying out NALSAR's statutory duties under the Act. (I've made observations to that effect in the background) So we need to make the Policy compliant with the Act in terms of time-frames - for example the formal complaint must be disposed of within 90 days etc. At the same time, we can go beyond what the Act mandates.

The policy is still very rough around the edges and we need to put in some work to refine the language used. Please let me know how I can help! See you all in college in very soon.

Cheers,

Anees

[Vasanthi Nimushakavi]

Dear all

 

i think it is important to move lineally and not rework on the old draft. the new position is that i think we should split the draft into a policy document which could have definitions of sexual harassment, other forms of discrimination, denigrating gender identity,workshops,  etc and a more succinct code for the committee. the committee should not have to refer to a 50 page document every time they have a complaint to deal with. the important parts are quite lost in a lot of detail. I request all of you to spend some time and identify what you believe is core component and what could go into an overarching policy document.we could say that the policy would dictate the implementation of the code but if we make a huge code i find it unwieldly.

 

Dr.Nimushakavi Vasanthi

Associate Professor

NALSAR University of law

Hyderabad

Ph.040-23498217