‘Silence, not justice’: POSH cells fail sexual harassment survivors; SRISIIM formed one after molestation case

On August 9, 2025, the managing body of Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management - Research, Delhi, announced it had “severed all ties” with the SRISIIM head Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati for “activities” that were later revealed to be serial sexual harassment of students. Two days later, on August 11, it set up an Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee (ASHC).

Careers360 asked SRISIIM officials if the institute had an anti-sexual harassment committee, before self-styled godman Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati’s sexual abuse came to light, but didn’t receive any response. However, a check on the Internet Archive, WaybackMachine, suggests that the SRISIIM website has had no anti-sexual harassment policy posted on it over the decade leading to September 24, 2025, when the police case against Saraswati – or, Dr. Parthasarathy – was filed. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) , which regulates technical education, requires all AICTE-approved institutions to implement anti-sexual harassment regulations.

But ad hocism and dismissiveness with regard to prevention of sexual harassment are intensely familiar to survivors and a problem that the “Me Too” movement of 2017 has not solved. Multiple survivors told Careers360 that POSH committees, even where they do exist, are used as tools to ‘manage’ cases of sexual harassment rather than redress grievances of their targets. In many cases, they are used to “gag” survivors.

Also read Over 13,800 student suicides in 2023, highest in 10 years: NCRB report

SRISIIM’s anti-sexual harassment committee

“As a responsible institution, SRISIIM is committed to providing a safe and inclusive environment for all its students, faculty, and staff. In line with this commitment, the college has established an Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee (ASHC) to address and redress concerns related to sexual harassment on campus,” it said.

The notification, currently listed under “Mandatory Disclosures” on the website, lists four members – Astha Gupta, Prerna Tripathi and Soumen Datta from SRISIIM and Deepika Bharadwaj, an advocate and external member. The associate director – administration, Ranjan Sen, who signed off on the notification was asked if this was the first; he said he was “not authorised” to speak.

Pages cached by the Wayback Machine shows that till September 24, the “Mandatory Disclosures” section itself did not exist.

Pages cached by the Wayback Machine shows till September 24, the “Mandatory Disclosures” section did not exist

There’s also no trace, at least online, of any previous iteration of such in internal complaints committee (ICC), set up under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – popularly known as the POSH Act.

Rama K, retired women’s rights activist and advocate, pointed out that the AICTE has laid down strict regulations on sexual harassment in its affiliated institutions. Under the AICTE (Gender Sensitisation, Prevention and Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students and Redressal of Grievances in Technical Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2016, every AICTE-approved college is legally-bound to set up an internal complaints committee (ICC), also referred to as a POSH cell. These regulations directly enforce the national POSH Act of 2013 and are a mandatory condition for maintaining affiliation.

“An institute like SRISIIM, being under AICTE’s purview, was not merely expected but legally required to have a functioning anti-sexual harassment committee,” Rama said. “The fact that such lapses still occur shows this is not an isolated case, but part of a larger systemic failure across institutions.”

As per its own press note, the Peetham severed ties with the self-styled godman, Swami Chaitanyananda after receiving a complaint from an Air Force officer serving as director, University Outreach Programme, Directorate of Education, Air Headquarters. Chaitanyananda Swaraswati was arrested earlier this week.

ICC, POSH cells: Process as harassment

The high-profile case has pulled focus to the ICCs – also known as CASH (Committee Against Sexual Harassment) – mandated by the University Grants Commission . In theory, these bodies should protect survivors under the 2013 POSH Act but for many students, they have become symbols of delay, intimidation, and impunity.

“Essentially the CASH committee is often considered anti-victim,” said Insha Husain, president of the Ashoka University Student Government. “It includes very harsh policies and guidelines. When it comes to students,... the complaint has to be filed within three months and once it has been filed, you are prohibited from sharing or talking about the case. If you do, it will be used against you as well.” If perpetrators are found guilty, punishment is usually a “slap on the wrist”, she added. “The committees are also very slow in their work and the annual CASH report , which every committee is supposed to publish, is also not being followed.”

“I was told to keep quiet while the committee investigated,” said Aradhya S* , who faced harassment by a senior researcher as a doctoral student at Jawaharlal Nehru University some years ago. Her experience bears out what Husain said about POSH cells.

“It took them nine months to even call me,” she recalled. “At that time, I still had to sit in the same lab, taking instructions from the same man. My thesis was held hostage — he controlled access to the equipment. The committee’s delays became his weapon.”

She eventually completed and passed her viva but at the cost of emotional breakdowns. “When people ask why women don’t file cases, I tell them: because the process is another form of harassment.”

‘Made to feel foolish’: IIT Delhi student

Another survivor, a postgraduate from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi recounted how her complaint about a professor’s repeated comments was trivialised. “The CASH members asked me if I was overreacting,” she said. “They told me, ‘These are casual remarks, maybe he didn’t mean them that way.’ I was made to feel foolish for even filing. The professor was simply ‘advised to be careful with his words.’ That was the entire outcome.”

She never filed again. “What’s the point? If the message is that you’re the problem, why go through it?”

Also read Accused Ramjas College professor was reported for sexual harassment before, allege students

Another survivor, Raksha N* faced harassment at a private liberal arts university in NCR and ultimately withdrew from the programme midway through third year. “We were warned about placements in an indirect way," she said. “After I filed, committee members started hinting that it might affect my placements. They didn’t say it outright, but the message was clear: don’t make trouble if you want recruiters to hire you. I felt completely alone. The boy I complained against went on to lead a student club. I became the one seen as ‘controversial.”

She now warns younger students about the gaps in the system. “I tell them: don’t expect justice, expect silence.”

‘Survivors are gagged’: Activists

Rights advocates argue that campus committees are structurally biased and often exist more to protect the college than the complainant.

“Harassment is not taken seriously when it comes from within the campus,” said a Chennai-based activist who has tracked student cases across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. “Universities see every complaint as a reputational risk. The instinct is to hush it up. Unless the accused is a temporary staffer or someone expendable, institutions will shield the perpetrator.”

Another activist said the confidentiality clause under the POSH Act has become a weapon in the hands of management. “Survivors are gagged into silence, but perpetrators roam free, teaching and supervising as if nothing happened. The committee culture is slow, opaque, and stacked against the vulnerable. Most students don’t even know how to file a complaint until it’s too late.”

Rama K pointed out that ICCs are dominated by senior faculty or administrators who have a direct interest in protecting the college. “When the committee members report to the same vice-chancellor or principal whose reputation is on the line , what independence can you expect? In many campuses, students tell us they fear retaliation — lower grades, blocked recommendations, or even eviction from hostels — if they speak up,” she said.

A student organiser from a campus collective in Bengaluru added that non-compliance is built into the system. “Committees don’t meet unless there’s a media storm,” he said, asking not to be named. “Survivors are told not to go public because it will ‘damage the institution’s name’. Meanwhile, abusers are quietly protected, sometimes even promoted. The structure is designed to protect hierarchy, not to deliver justice.”

* Names changed to protect identity