For those interested in this case, a hearing took place on 30 March, 2022, after 2.5 years of no movement. Justice Rekha Palli gave this order: "No time left.List on 18.08.2022. "
In the previous hearing, dated 10 December 2019, Justice Pratibha Singh gave this order: "It is 4.45 pm. No Time left. List on 18th March 2020". With Covid etc, the hearing obviously didn't happen and instead happened on 30 March 2022.
Six prior hearings took place before that, going back to 2018: two under Justice Rajiv Shakdher, one under Justice Vibhu Bakhru, one under Justice Vinod Goel, two under Justice Prateek Jalan. Most of the hearings were adjourned and listed for another date.
I feel sorry for the girl. This must be costing here time and money, apart from being emotionally draining and reviving her trauma. The dialogue Tareekh pe Tareekh Actually comes from an old Hindi movie about a sexual assault survivor, called Damini. So it seems the movie was an accurate depiction of our judicial system.
Professor Liang has a strong legal case, which is that Ambedkar University's disciplinary committee cannot exercise jurisdiction over acts committed at JNU and Alternative Law Forum, or outside the course of employment at AUD. Let me quote from the Wire:
The complainant, who accused Liang of multiple instances of forced kissing, touch, and unwelcome text messages, is not a student or colleague at AUD. The incidents she complained about took place between 2015 and 2016 – before Liang was appointed to AUD – when they were PhD students elsewhere, though Liang was much older and already an established scholar at the time.
[i]The committee also took on board information about additional accusations of harassment – involving interns at an NGO in Bangalore where Liang worked earlier – in which the victims were not present as complainants or witnesses. [/I]
And to those who are saying that Professor Liang should have been expelled from his job (like the girl who complained and people on social media) the eminent feminist scholar and JNU professor Nivedita Menon has said:
[i]The minimum punishment cannot be termination from a job! Especially as in Lawrence’s case it is clear that the incident did not happen in a student-teacher interaction. In my opinion, the decision of the committee regarding punishment is judicious and appropriate to the situation as described. It is not for social media commentators to decide the quantum of punishment. [/I]
I mean. If the best argument for him is that “ hey jurisdiction” . And not “ I didn’t force myself on this person” . That tells you there’s a clear moral right and wrong here, and he’s morally wrong. Nivedita Menon needs to think less about what would protect her friend and more about what it would do to young women studying at universities to have to deal with him as a professor. No one is entitled to teach young people and have so much power over them- it’s a privilege. And universities would be doing the right thing in protecting their students if they decided they want nothing to do with this guy.
Why should we care what Menon had to say? She's not a person involved in the case, nor a part of the decision making authorities. And had this been someone with a different political opinion, say someone with RW inclination, I have no doubt that she would be seeking their blood for the same offence. These people are all hypocrites. And only those people try to harp on jurisdiction here who lack any argument or evidence to say that he didn't actually commit the crime.
People downvoting comment 4, please think like a lawyer and not like laymen. If an alleged offence is committed in Brazil, how can a court in Pakistan try it? Similarly, the fundamental issue is whether AUD has jurisdiction for acts done outside the AUD campus. The answer has to be no and Professor Liang must be cleared.
AUD has jurisdiction over its faculty and duty to consider whether people with power are able to conduct themselves appropriately . This incident might suggest that a powerful member of their faculty had poor judgment that could put AUD's faculty and students at risk. If it had removed him without a hearing, none of this would have come up.
I have no faith in our judiciary to give relief to victims of sexual harassment. In India, only the rich and powerful get justice by hiring top lawyers or through fixing.
Liang's lawyers are Jawahar Raja and Akhil Sibal, so he has a crack legal team. No doubt they will press hard on the jurisdiction issue. Someone made the point about the moral question being more important, but that has no weightage. Check out the series on O.J. Simpson on Netflix!!
Liang’s defence is not only one of jurisdiction but also that the kissing/touching was consensual (see the Asia Times report). You might think that it is a ridiculous defence, but see how our judges have ruled in cases like the Mahmood Farooqi rape case, TISS rape case, Tarun Tejpal case etc.
Consensual in this case means he wasn't imposing on the girl by physical force, merely [allegedly] leveraging the power equation to make her not say no.
Are you trolling? Because if not, then you actually need to get some brains asap You do know that Liang is an NLSIU alumnus, right? And that he's been recently called back there to be part of a project? And that the same NLSIU alum who shout themselves hoarse in other similar matters involving SH have been mysteriously quiet in Liang's case?
NLSIU alum on LawSIkho webinar: There is a culture of toxic masculinity prevalent in our profession which we have all battled as young professionals. Unfortunately, the lesson we were always taught is to ignore it and look the other way. Even now, misogyny is not a subject that you see a lot of senior lawyers calling out or flagging. The culture of silence is deafening, and it is time to let younger lawyers and law students know that some of us have their back.
In contrast, sexual harassment allegations against non-left personalities are regularly mentioned. It is high time something was done about Wikipedia's bias and lack of transparency. A group of around 6-7 left-wing editors are behaving like a mafia on all India-related topics. Articles on Sanjeev Sandal, Vikram Sampath and the Kashmir Files have been heavily smeared by these people.
Meanwhile, the offender keeps getting glorified in his circle and at his alma mater, where there are already way too many such instances brushed under the carpet regularly.
Update: the case was listed again on 15 December but has now been moved to 6 March 2023. So, only 9 hearings in 5 years, almost all of which were adjournments for lack of time and none of which addressed the crux of the case.
It will take at least 30-40 years for the case to be decided at this rate. God only knows what the survivor must be going through mentally and financially. She must be in her 20s and juggling many commitments. I also doubt if she earns enough as a young academic to afford expensive lawyers, whereas Jawahar Raja is appearing for Liang.
A hearing took place on 6 March, under Justice Pratibha Singh. Liang was represented by Advocate Varsha Sharma (who I think is the junior of NLSIU alum Jawahar Raja, the Senior Advocate representing Liang).
AUD was represented by AOR Mohinder J.S.Rupal (formerly a partner at Gagrat & Co) and his son Hardik Rupal. The survivor was represented by AOR Goutham Shivshankar, a young counsel and NUJS alum.
The court passed this order: "This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. List on 6th September, 2023."
Thus, 10 hearings in 6 years so far, none of which involved substantive arguments. Is this fair to the survivor?
A hearing took place on 6 September 2024, as scheduled, under a new judge. Lawrence Liang was represented by NLSIU alum Advocate Jawahar Raja. The survivor was represented by NUJS alum Advocate Goutham Shivshankar. AUD was also represented.
The following order was passed:
"Pursuant to the Order dated 09.05.2018, the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment has been arrayed as a party to the present proceedings. Ms. Astha Gupta, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment and seeks some time to get instructions.List on 16.01.2024."
Thus, 11 hearings in 6 years. No substantive arguments made yet and the SH committee has only just been served notice.
Update: A hearing took place on 16 January, as scheduled. Unlike previous hearings, at least some progress was made. AUD's counter-affidavit was accepted. Also, the survivor requested that she be allowed to refute the averments made by Liang in his petition. The court accepted her plea and gave her 4 weeks to do so, plus gave Liang the right to file a rejoinder. The court listed the next hearing on 24 April.
So, it's now been nearly 6 years and 13 hearings have taken place. We seem to be 3-4 hearings away from concluding the written submissions. Optimistically , one hopes this will be done by 2025 and the arguments and cross-examinations will be completed within 4-5 years after that, and a verdict reached by 2030. 🤞
Update: A hearing took place, as scheduled, on 24 April 2024. Liang was represented by NLSIU alum and Senior Advocate Jawahar Raja, AUD through Manika Tripathy and the survivor through NUJS alum Goutham Shivshankar. The judge (Justice Subramaniam Prasad) gave 3 weeks to AUD to file a reply and asked for rejoinders to the reply to be filed before the next hearing. The just listed 24 July as the next date of hearing.
Current status: 6 years, 14 hearings, still no hearing on substantive arguments by counsels. But at least some progress, so a decision by 2030 is possible, perhaps even earlier. Interesting that the survivor is not giving up but continuing to fight.
If even Harvey Weinstein got acquitted in a supposedly gender-friendly country like the US, what hope can a survivor have in India? I have seen the tricks used by lawyers of perpetrators. They make filthy insinuations during cross-examination/arguments and do their best to slut-shame survivors. Judges have no sympathy, even women judges. Remember what a woman judge said in the Tarun Tejpal case?
Nothing unusual in the timeframe. Even the Harvey Weinstein trial took 8 years or so and he got acquitted in the end. Sexual harassment cases require careful assessment of evidence and the need to give a fair hearing to all sides. In this case, there is a fundamental jurisdictional issue whether you like it or not: how can a university punish staff for acts committed outside campus?
Lawrence is 50 years old. If the judgement comes after 10 years he will already be retired! Even if it comes after 5-6 years he will be nearing retirement.
At NUJS, the SH matter involving an ex-▮▮▮ and ▮▮▮ has been going in the local court since 2014. Not concluding any time soon. The ex-▮▮▮ ▮▮▮ (suspended since 2014) appealed before the Cal HC when his services were terminated in 2019. That is going on as well.
Now we have an Associate Prof who alleges SH ▮▮▮. She has now gone to Cal HC following police and university inaction.
Exactly! LI extensively covered the earlier SH incident (2013-14) involving two admin staff. Mainstream media ran several articles. The media exposure actually resulted in police finally arresting the alleged perpetrator. Later when the alleged perpetrator was fired by the EC in 2019 and he went to Cal HC that has been posted on LI as well including the citation. The 2014 case in local court is still on and the citation is publicly available.
As regards the Associate Professor alleging SH by VC, it is public knowledge. Her WPs in the Cal HC have also been posted in LI and is known to everyone.
In first year tort law class we all learnt about “course of employment”. If a professor molests a student outside campus, then it still counts because the professor is meeting the student in the capacity of a mentor. In any case, SH is a CRIME, not a tort. A perpetrator should thank his stars if he is merely disciplined by a college and not arrested by the police.
In the previous hearing, dated 10 December 2019, Justice Pratibha Singh gave this order: "It is 4.45 pm. No Time left. List on 18th March 2020". With Covid etc, the hearing obviously didn't happen and instead happened on 30 March 2022.
Six prior hearings took place before that, going back to 2018: two under Justice Rajiv Shakdher, one under Justice Vibhu Bakhru, one under Justice Vinod Goel, two under Justice Prateek Jalan. Most of the hearings were adjourned and listed for another date.
Case docket here:
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhc_case_status_oj_list.asp?pno=890371
The complainant, who accused Liang of multiple instances of forced kissing, touch, and unwelcome text messages, is not a student or colleague at AUD. The incidents she complained about took place between 2015 and 2016 – before Liang was appointed to AUD – when they were PhD students elsewhere, though Liang was much older and already an established scholar at the time.
[i]The committee also took on board information about additional accusations of harassment – involving interns at an NGO in Bangalore where Liang worked earlier – in which the victims were not present as complainants or witnesses. [/I]
And to those who are saying that Professor Liang should have been expelled from his job (like the girl who complained and people on social media) the eminent feminist scholar and JNU professor Nivedita Menon has said:
[i]The minimum punishment cannot be termination from a job! Especially as in Lawrence’s case it is clear that the incident did not happen in a student-teacher interaction. In my opinion, the decision of the committee regarding punishment is judicious and appropriate to the situation as described. It is not for social media commentators to decide the quantum of punishment.
[/I]
https://thewire.in/gender/in-finding-dean-guilty-university-expands-jurisdiction-over-sexual-harassment
And not “ I didn’t force myself on this person” . That tells you there’s a clear moral right and wrong here, and he’s morally wrong. Nivedita Menon needs to think less about what would protect her friend and more about what it would do to young women studying at universities to have to deal with him as a professor. No one is entitled to teach young people and have so much power over them- it’s a privilege. And universities would be doing the right thing in protecting their students if they decided they want nothing to do with this guy.
You do know that Liang is an NLSIU alumnus, right? And that he's been recently called back there to be part of a project? And that the same NLSIU alum who shout themselves hoarse in other similar matters involving SH have been mysteriously quiet in Liang's case?
There is a culture of toxic masculinity prevalent in our profession which we have all battled as young professionals. Unfortunately, the lesson we were always taught is to ignore it and look the other way. Even now, misogyny is not a subject that you see a lot of senior lawyers calling out or flagging. The culture of silence is deafening, and it is time to let younger lawyers and law students know that some of us have their back.
https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/law-sikho-webinar-controversy-toxic-masculinity-legal-profession-ramanuj-mukherjee
NLSIU alum on Lawrence Liang case:
🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗
https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bar-and-bench/lawrence-liang-files-delhi-hc-writ-vs-ambedkar-u-sex-harass-panel-while-hidden-battles-rage-online-20180524-9367
In contrast, sexual harassment allegations against non-left personalities are regularly mentioned. It is high time something was done about Wikipedia's bias and lack of transparency. A group of around 6-7 left-wing editors are behaving like a mafia on all India-related topics. Articles on Sanjeev Sandal, Vikram Sampath and the Kashmir Files have been heavily smeared by these people.
[i]1. It is already 04:50 PM. Due to paucity of time, it is not possible to take up this matter today.
2. Re-notify on 15th December, 2022.[/I]
delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhc_case_status_oj_list.asp?pno=890371
This has been going on the past 4 years. Is it any wonder why so many people get away with crimes against women in India?
AUD was represented by AOR Mohinder J.S.Rupal (formerly a partner at Gagrat & Co) and his son Hardik Rupal. The survivor was represented by AOR Goutham Shivshankar, a young counsel and NUJS alum.
The court passed this order: "This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. List on 6th September, 2023."
Thus, 10 hearings in 6 years so far, none of which involved substantive arguments. Is this fair to the survivor?
http://164.100.60.183/writereaddata/OrderSAN_PDF/pms/2023/1678193415375_73056_2023.pdf
The following order was passed:
"Pursuant to the Order dated 09.05.2018, the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment has been arrayed as a party to the present proceedings. Ms. Astha Gupta, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment and seeks some time to get instructions.List on 16.01.2024."
Thus, 11 hearings in 6 years. No substantive arguments made yet and the SH committee has only just been served notice.
https://dhcappl.nic.in/dhcorderportal/GetOrder.do?ID=smp/2023/726009531694447201646_59088_2023.pdf
So, it's now been nearly 6 years and 13 hearings have taken place. We seem to be 3-4 hearings away from concluding the written submissions. Optimistically , one hopes this will be done by 2025 and the arguments and cross-examinations will be completed within 4-5 years after that, and a verdict reached by 2030. 🤞
https://dhcappl.nic.in/dhcorderportal/GetOrder.do?ID=smp/2024/696311501705573590028_40873_34352018.pdf
Current status: 6 years, 14 hearings, still no hearing on substantive arguments by counsels. But at least some progress, so a decision by 2030 is possible, perhaps even earlier. Interesting that the survivor is not giving up but continuing to fight.
Now we have an Associate Prof who alleges SH ▮▮▮. She has now gone to Cal HC following police and university inaction.
As regards the Associate Professor alleging SH by VC, it is public knowledge. Her WPs in the Cal HC have also been posted in LI and is known to everyone.
What's with the chilling effect?