Body-shaming, leering gaze: DU fact-finding body found sufficient basis for sexual harassment allegations against college principal

The FFC is learnt to have found that the accusations leveled against Singh are serious, and potentially constitute sexual harassment under the legal framework defined by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and its Rules.

The complaints against Singh were filed in March, and the Committee submitted its report on June 23.

Sources said that the governing body of Ramanujan College has recently forwarded the complaints against the principal to the Delhi University ICC. When contacted, governing body chairman Ajay Gupta declined to comment.

The complainants, who interacted with the Committee and made written submissions to it, made allegations of persistent misbehaviour, leering gaze, and explicit body shaming against Rasal Singh.

Reached for comment, Rasal Singh said, “The matter is sub judice. It would not be proper to comment on the issues at this stage.”

Sources said he has challenged the formation of the FCC as “extra judicial” and complained to the Prime Minister’s Office against what he called his “politically motivated victimisation”. He has also alleged that the FFC did not speak to him.

The FFC also presented a detailed questionnaire to the principal, who denied all allegations. The Committee has taken the view that the principal was not being truthful.

Principal Singh was suspended last week, and he has challenged the action against him before the Delhi High Court. Delhi University Vice Chancellor Prof Yogesh Singh did not respond to phone calls from The Indian Express seeking a comment.

The FFC has observed that there is fear among the complainants who, given the principal’s position of authority, feel threatened and unsafe. It has noted that it is possible there are other similar instances of harassment that have not been reported.

One of the complainants is learnt to have told the Committee about the principal’s alleged humiliating and body-shaming remarks and offensive gaze. Sources said the complainant had told the Committee that Rasal Singh lectured her about running for an hour every day, and upon being told that she did work out every day, he had looked her up and down and responded that it did not show in her body.

This, the Committee said, clearly falls under “sexually coloured remarks” or “unwelcome…verbal…conduct of a sexual nature” under the sexual harassment law.

This complainant also said that Rasal Singh had an obsessive fixation with her WhatsApp display picture – which was a dog – and had demanded that she change it. The complainant also pointed to Singh’s alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour and lecherous gaze, which she said made her deeply uncomfortable.

On one occasion, Singh had allegedly pointed to the complainant’s body in an obscene manner and asked her to remove something from her clothing, which, she told the FFC, made her feel violated and objectified.

The complainants told the Committee that Singh had threatened them. The FFC noted that statements and threats to the women to “settle” the issue or things “would go bad” can be construed as “implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in employment” or “implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status”, creating an “intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment” under the provisions of the 2013 law.

From the homepage

Drama in Leh: Right before he could address press conference, Sonam Wangchuk detained

Amid walkouts, Netanyahu says Israel ‘must finish job in Gaza’, asks Hamas to surrender in UN speech

Bareilly protest over ‘I Love Mohammad’ banner turns violent: Stones pelted, vehicles damaged