•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Prof denies homophobia as NLU Jodhpur VC submits controversial course materials for expert review

The devil may lie in the many details in the epic nine-day row over apparently homophobic course materials that had been shared with students as part of their sociology course...

NLU Jodhpur has formally begun an investigation into allegations that course materials provided to 2022-batch undergraduate law students by sociology assistant professor Dr Asha Bhandari had been homophobic, after the school’s alumni began going public about the issue on Twitter.

We have not been able to authoritatively confirm exactly in what context the materials had been shared by Bhandari, though they appeared to have been sent to students via a Google Groups email list including both Bhandari and students as part of their sociology course.

We have reached out to vice-chancellor (VC) Prof Poonam Saxena told us by message today: “The concerned teacher was asked to submit a copy of the entire material to us which she has done.”

“It is too soon to come to any conclusion. We are getting an opinion on it from subject experts,” added Saxena.

We have also received a comment from Bhandari, who has been teaching since 2001, and whose specialisation lies in gender studies, sociology and law, and applied ethics and legal reasoning.

Bhandari denied she was homophobic and told us that the entire affair has been a “very shocking and a surprising experience” for her that had “left scars on me and my image”, and had created a “lot of mental pressure”.

Bhandari also said that the materials had been shared online due to instruction taking place virtually because of the Covid-19 lockdown, that the materials shared were not “essential readings but reference readings”, and that these were only a few of many other documents she had shared in the course.

She explained: “In a Sociology class I cannot just stand in front of my students and say That 377 is unconstitutional now that means everything is good. But everybody knows that’s not the ground reality, I mean we who are privilege, well educated or are living in a good society know that its not a sin to be homosexual and that they are not vulnerable, but majority in the society still oppose homosexuality and consider it a sin.

“You go to villages or less urban areas you’ll know the ground reality. Hence it is my job to teach my students that ‘No, kids the society does not function that way, even if the law is out most of the time it doesn’t reach the masses.’"

In order “to bring the social change firstly we need to recognise them and then we star[t] altering them”, she said.

(See Bhandari’s extended comments and some of her correspondence with students below).

The materials

First off, the materials in question.

The material apparently included slides that listed “ten ways in which society could be harmed by legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’" (see below), which is clearly a homophobic sentiment.

That same text and those 10 points appear widely replicated all over the internet on sites and blogs opposing same-sex marriage. That 10-point listicle may have originally come from the US-based Family Research Council, which Wikipedia describes as a “fundamentalist Protestant activist group, with an affiliated lobbying organization”.

Bhandari’s materials also appeared to include a chapter from a paper entitled “factors affecting homosexual orientation”, which describes “ultra-conservative christians and gay theologians appear[ing] to agree that a genetic origin of homosexuality has moral significance” and is a “morally culpable choice”.

We have not been able to find out the title of that paper, but it appears to have come from a chapter of an academic research paper (since it’s hosted on Shodhganga, which aims to be a “reservoir” of Indian PhD theses. The chapter in question is available online ( cache copy here, or here).

While generally being a little confused and unclear in its writing, arguments and intent, that paper quotes a number of very obviously homophobic statements from religious groups opposed to gay marriage (without rebuttal), and it concludes that “homosexuality is not always ‘caused’ by a choice”.

That said, it also counsels that “the parents must stand by their children against all odds and should extend all support to facilitate their living and wishful life”.

The texts, on their own, certainly contain several homophobic or outdated statements.

But the crux of the matter appears to surround how those documents were presented to students.

In retrospect, without access and participation in the full course, it may be hard to determine whether such purported context was communicated clearly enough by Bhandari, or whether it was misunderstood by students, or a mixture of both.

It is also possible that neither was not helped by the fact that the course was taught in an unfamiliar online format to both students and Bhandari.

As of now, we at LI have not really been able to come to an authoritative conclusion either way.

But for those who are interested, we have included a lot more of the (sometimes voluminous) arguments and statements below, including Bhandari’s full comment explaining her position.

Chronology and background information, letters and comments

The controversy had first come to light in a Facebook post by a lawyer and non-NLU Jodhpur post-graduate student on 11 April, with him having included screenshots of the material in question.

However, that post was soon removed, apparently on the request of NLU Jodhpur students, who were presumably trying to go through official channels before going public.

On 12 April, 2020, two students had written the following email to Bhandari:

Respected Madam,

Thank you so much for taking your valuable time to write to us. We understand that there might have been a misunderstanding yesterday with regard to the course curriculum and this is our sincere effort to resolve the same.

We understand that the lockdown is something unprecedented and has caused everyone a lot of stress and anxiety. In these trying times, we have absolute admiration for you for taking the energy to send course material regularly to all of us. We understand that it is something that this is something that does require special time and efforts on your part and we are immensely grateful for that.

Madam, we did not make any presumptions that you are not aware of the latest position of the law as you are a teacher with esteemed qualifications and commendable teaching experience. However we believe, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Navtej Johar it is important that discussion in these matter should not stigmatize members of the LGBTQ+ community. Especially in the public forum such as a classroom, these discussion should be entered into with sensitivity, so as to not alienate and discriminate against members of that community. We understand you may have had the best intentions in mind, however we thought we would bring to your notice the several limitations concerning this study material that was sent to us.

We fully agree that it is important to understand the background and the social realities of any socio-legal debate, especially those of this kind of sensitivity. Due importance must be given to conservative thought as the objective is to have a balanced debate. We fully appreciate your efforts to educate us on the same. However, we believe that in educating matters of such sensitivity, the tone and context behind the same is of utmost importance.

First, you asked us to refer to these PPTs as study material of ‘homosexuality in India’(in the original mail). At no point of time in that mail was it informed to us that this was merely other side of the argument. We believe that the learning place must be a safe space for members of the community. We believe that the material introduced should be carefully vetted and contextualized.

Moreover, while due importance must be given to conservative thought, it must be backed with scholarly research. Much of the study material parrots homophobic old-wives tales without any allusion to the research it is getting them from. For example, attributing the spread of AIDS to gay men. The Supreme Court has noted in Navtej Johar that stigma has made access to condoms increasingly difficult for gay men. This has been a crucial form of discrimination against them. The study material carelessly propagates this stigma without due caution necessary. The Scribd PPT you have shared makes certain unjustified accusations. We feel that when statements such as, “Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.” and “Freedom of conscience and liberty would be threatened” as portrayed as harms of same-sex marriage, it deserves contextualization and nuance into the theory behind these conservative thoughts. It further says that LGBTQ+ community is responsible for break down of marriages. We humbly request you to educate us on what research this is based on else it becomes a mere homophobic assertion.

Lot of the study material also has graphic description of shock treatment etc. Please understand these description sometimes trigger anxiety and fear in members of the community as this is trauma that a lot of members from the community may have faced. Introducing them into classroom needs to take the lived experience of the students into consideration. We humbly request you to get the Scribd ppt carefully and propose that it be withdrawn.

Regarding the discussion on social media, I ([...]), am extremely apologetic for the same. I was sharing my frustrations with a friend who decided to post it on social media, after which it got out of hand. When I did learn of the kind of unwarranted attention the post was getting, I immediately requested him to take it down. I do not have complete control over what other people decide to post, however, in these unfortunate circumstances, I did my very best to correct the same. If I have inadvertently caused you any form of distress or anguish, for that I am sincerely sorry.

Madam, we realize that you may not have intended to be homophobic, but we believe due care must have been taken in vetting the material or contextualising the same. We genuinely would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to clarify this with us in a professional manner. We sincerely appreciate this and hope this would clear any misinformation from our end.

Warm Regards.

Alumni go public

On Saturday, 18 April, a Twitter account that had recently been started with the handle @Pride_NLU, styling itself as the “The official twitter handle of the Pride Group of National Law University Jodhpur ?“, began posting about the issue.

The handle claimed that 150 NLU Jodhpur alumni had sent a petition to NLU Jodhpur’s VC and its general council (see transcription of full letter further below).

Before that petition, the handle had tweeted a series of posts with details of the materials, and summarising the situation as follows:

On 11th April, 2020, the students of UG Semester VI recieved certain homophobic study material from their sociology teacher, Dr. Asha Bhandari as a part of their Sociology course (1/n)

The material was given without any contextualization whatsoever and provided a poorly researched, archaic, one-sided perspective that perpetrated harmful stereotypes. Some excepts of the material are provided here. (2/n)

via @Pride_NLU Twitter: Course material shared with NLU Jodhpur students (we at LI could not confirm exactly in what context this was provided)
via @Pride_NLU Twitter: Course material shared with NLU Jodhpur students (we at LI could not confirm exactly in what context this was provided)
via @Pride_NLU Twitter: Purported textbook excerpt shared with students (we at LI could not confirm the exact context)
via @Pride_NLU Twitter: Purported textbook excerpt shared with students (we at LI could not confirm the exact context)

The material portrayed homosexuality as a “sickness” that can be healed and provided detailed descriptions of conversion therapy without adequate clarification regarding its context. It also gave outdated, prejudiced views on the “causes of homosexuality” (3/n)

When questioned on the same by the students, she replied stating that such material was sent for the purpose of inculcating genuine debates. However, this response is unsatisfactory and is percieved as an afterthought. (4/n)

via @Pride_NLU
via @Pride_NLU

Subsequently, Dr. Asha Bhandari chose to delegate the task of finding appropriate reading material to the students instead of taking steps to correct the prejudicial views perpetrated. (5/n)

The Pride Group of NLUJ along with the Interim Student Body and the Academic Support and Literary Committee made a representation to the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor and requested the University to take appropriate action. However, this was met with no response. (6/n)

We, as Pride NLUJ, condemn Dr. Bhandari’s wanton disregard for the hateful nature of the material distributed by her, her subsequent attempts to trivialize concerns raised by students, and abdication of her responsibility as a teacher. (7/n)

Further, we are disappointed in the manner in which the college administration has made no attempts to address the concerns of the students and their failure to take appropriate action. (8/n)

— Pride NLUJ (@Pride_NLUJ) Sat, 18 Apr 2020, 00:07

Bhandari writes an email to students

On the evening of 18 April, Bhandari had sent another email to the 2022 batch, noting:

Dear students

I am writing this mail to draw your attention to the incident happened in last few days during on line class teaching in the subject Sociology III( Law and Society) To clarify the issue I am forwarding you the mail of 3 April that I have send to my own ID( which I regularly and generally do after completing my work on every day) that shows that all the material including legal development was with me on the 3rd itself and I had planned to sent each one of them every day so that the topic may be completed within 5-6 days. I also want to draw your attention that I followed same methodology in each topic- starting with origin and conceptual understanding of topic , history, sociological aspect, legal status in other countries, legal status in India and way forward and the students are aware about it, this was communicated in the physical class also , so there was no need to mentioned that again and again in every PPT..) On the said day ( 11 April) also I had first forwarded the regular PPT and then in my subsequent mail I send theses material. On previous day ie 10 April also material on homosexuality was sent, and same was done on the next day( April 13, April 12 was Sunday so no material was communicated)so this is not the case that only on the said date material was handover to students. After lock down also in online classes each topic have been covered within 5-6 days and every day the material was sent to them.

This topic have been discussed under Part IV-Socio-legal debates in India(as communicated earlier also) and in order to understand the legalization of same sex marriage it is essential to understand the concept, theories and arguments related to homosexuality( point number two under Same sex marriage). The readings were not essential reading but reference readings( as mention this will help you in understanding homosexuality in India) to construct various argument -for and against as in the online method of teaching a direct communication was not possible.

Hope this will clarify the misunderstanding created among students and they will understand the issue and study material in totality.

Full letter to admin from alumni

As described above, the below letter was sent on behalf of alumni to the NLU Jodhpur administration, which has also been shared on Twitter).

Dear Dr. Saxena, Hon’ble Chancellor, and Hon’ble Members of the General Council,

We, the undersigned alumni of National Law University, Jodhpur, much to our consternation, have learnt that current VI semester undergraduate students of the University pursuing the ‘Sociology - III Law and Society’ course were sent outright homophobic content purportedly as essential reading by Dr. Asha Bhandari, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Member, Academic Council, on April 11, 2020 (see attached). On a perusal of the content, it is evident that the material sent by Dr. Bhandari is unscientific, uncritical, based on outdated notions of homosexuality, perpetuates dangerous stereotypes, and legitimizes prejudice against the LGBTIQ community. As you would all agree, this is unacceptable in any institute of learning, much less in one that prides itself on being a premier national law school.

By way of an example, one of the articles (ostensibly an outdated, sparsely footnoted, poorly researched chapter from an unnamed thesis), that forms part of the essential reading terms homosexuality as a “disorder” and “aims to identify the factors behind homosexual orientation.” The article states “[m]any beliefs that it is a mental disease, few believe that homosexuals are sexually obsessive beast with filthy mindset and inhumane sexual behaviour. Many belief that homosexuality is not a result of nature, but an outcome of how a person is nurtured.” The author goes on to exhort that “experts as well as the common man” hold “external factors” including “weak masculine identity, sexual abuse, sexual addiction, loss of local moral order” among others as “responsible for causing homosexual orientation in a person”. The article lists out various “implications” of homosexuality including “The homosexuals in order to express their love and fulfill their sexual desire adapt sexual practices which are unsafe (without any precautions) and not normal in nature.” The author concludes by suggesting ways of “healing homosexual attraction and behaviour”.

It is pertinent to note that the only other assigned reading on homosexuality by Dr. Bhandari, though less brazen, also crouches discriminatory, outdated ideas as “debates”. Titled “What causes homosexuality”, the reading states that one possible “scientific study” suggests that “[it] would seem that the family pattern involving a combination of a dominating, overly intimate mother plus a detached, hostile or weak father is beyond doubt related to the development of male homosexuality.” The article also attributes homosexuality to child sexual abuse, urbanization and even education, among other “factors”.

The reading material was circulated to the students without stating that these articles presented antiquated viewpoints or that material with counter-points would be circulated at a later point. Even if such material was presumably sent with a view to provide a historical account of the development of sociology surrounding homosexuality, we unequivocally condemn the action of Dr. Bhandari in prescribing as essential reading only regressive and discriminatory material, shorn of all context and critical analysis, that propagates prejudice and perpetuates entrenched stereotypes against LGBTIQ persons. It is also puzzling as to why Dr. Bhandari circulated these readings, as they do not form part of the reference material set out in the curriculum shared with the students at the beginning of the semester.

When the issues with the reading material were raised by students with Dr. Bhandari, she initially claimed that this material was only to provide “background and context” and to expose students to “different perspectives”, and to encourage a “genuine debate”. She also undertook to send further material on “legal development and recent changes”. However, till date Dr. Bhandari has not provided the students with any material dealing with sociological developments around homosexuality that are non-stigmatising. The claims of providing different perspectives is, therefore, self- refuting, and results in students being presented only with the homophobic perspective. On further questions being raised, Dr. Bhandari chose to delegate the task of finding appropriate reading material to students, which was a clear act of reprisal for the students taking the initiative of pointing out the bigotry in the material shared.

We are given to understand that the Interim Student Body has written to the Vice-Chancellor highlighting these issues on April 14, and placed on record their demand for a corrigendum to be issued to the emails sent by Dr. Bhandari, for a fresh set of reading material for the module, as well as for a sensitisation session for all faculty (see attached). We fully endorse the representation issued by the Interim Student Body and reiterate the need for a sensitisation to be conducted for all faculty and staff of the University on issues surrounding gender and sexuality.

We clarify that we do not wish to curb free and fair debate in classrooms, nor do we wish to dictate how every course ought to be administered in the University. In fact, we stand strongly in favour of fostering an environment where there is no undue interference in the administration of the course - a factor that those of us now teaching hold in extremely high regard. However, the University has to strive to be free from bias, prejudice, and intolerance of all kinds, and faculty ought to be held to the highest standards of behaviour. Members of the faculty, who are in a position to exert influence over the students, are duty-bound to ensure that legitimacy is not given to the expression of views which are discriminatory and which call into question the very humanity and dignity of a section of the society. In fact, teaching should be the last thing that exacerbates the stigma, self-doubt for students who identify themselves with non-heteronormative sexual and gender identities in an already prejudicial environment.

Giving currency to reading material that legitimises prejudice and stigma against already marginalised communities, ostensibly to provide “all sides of a debate”, is symptomatic of discrimination as we see in today’s time which is unacceptable - especially so, in light of the empathy and sensitivity that discussion on such issues require, and in light of the academic advancements in the field of both science and sociology.

Lest this be dismissed as an atypical incident, we wish to draw your attention to numerous such instances of bigotry either being promoted or actively undertaken by Dr. Bhandari. During our time as students at the University, many of us have been at the receiving end of Dr. Bhandari’s one-sided course material, casually passed off as “essential reading”. Dr. Bhandari, during the course of classroom lectures and during interactions with us outside the classroom, did not refrain from making extremely misogynistic, casteist, racist, and islamophobic statements. She has unduly exercised her position of authority in the classroom as well as as a member of various bodies and committees, including the committee for the prevention of sexual harassment, and has passed value judgments on students’ characters, personal lives, consensual relationships, and personal belief systems. The impact that such denunciations from an authority figure may have had on the psychological well-being of countless students, more so those from marginalised communities, cannot be disregarded.

While we endorse the need for course correction and remedial steps in this particular instance, this incident also highlights the institutional failure to check such bigotry and to meaningfully address student concerns. The University administration has been averse to any consultation with the alumni on all issues including those surrounding sensitisation for all staff and faculty, a rigorous audit of course material, incorporating an effective system of student feedback, and putting into place mechanisms to address emerging concerns surrounding harassment faced by female and LGBTIQ students. Any such attempt by present students is immediately thwarted, and quite often accompanied with retribution, silencing all voices seeking to bring about change.

At its core, a dual degree in law and the arts must aim to train students to serve the needs and interests of society as well as encourage progressive and critical thinking, which is also the purported aim of Dr. Bhandari’s course. It is thus doubly unfortunate that Dr. Bhandari has instead chosen to perpetuate inequalities and discrimination against already vulnerable students. This is antithetical to the role of a University, and an abuse of her position.

Therefore, we call upon you to:

(a) Constitute a committee, consisting of members of the General Council and external members of high academic repute, to conduct an inquiry forthwith into the incident and to take the requisite disciplinary action against Dr. Bhandari.

(b) Initiate an immediate external peer review of the curriculum for the ‘Sociology - III Law and Society’ course and incorporate current, rigorous, well-researched reading material for the course.

(c) Engage external academicians/lawyers/legal researchers as guest faculty for the module on homosexuality.

(d) Organise a sensitization sessions for all staff and faculty on gender and sexuality, by trained external resource-persons.

(e) Institute mechanisms to ensure that the highest standards of academic instruction are adhered to in the University, including a periodic curriculum development workshop, rigorous audit of teaching quality, course curriculum, and teaching methodology by independent peer-reviewers and senior academicians.

(f) Initiate an effective anonymous feedback system, with detailed questions, and ensure that the feedback given by students is given due consideration while updating curriculum and engaging faculty.

We look forward to engaging with the University administration and the General Council to improve the standards of teaching and learning, and to ensure that the University is a safe space for all concerned, particularly those vulnerable.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Full response by Bhandari when requested for comment

For completeness, we have included Bhandari’s full emailed response to our request for comment below.

I suppose by now you have read or understood everything which is out there on social media. Certain points raised were that the topic I was teaching was out of curriculum and homophobic or less researched. Some even went to lengths of branding me as conservative and homophobic. I had a great laugh about this with my son who is a filmmaker and thinks I am too openminded as a parent.

About the topic, well , the topic of homosexuality has been discussed under the topic ‘Same Sex Marriage’ (Part IV - Socio-Legal Debate in the course Sociology III (Law & Society).

As you might be aware that online classes are taking place due to Covid-19 pandemic and lock down in the Country thats why during one of my class I sent some study material (not a recorded material) on the said topic.

See the thing is in order to understand the concept of same sex marriage and its legalisation , it was firstly and mostly essential to understand the concept of same sex, origin , various theories about it, its social acceptance , arguments involved in-for-against social acceptance of homosexuality , legal development in the other part of the world and in India and finally a way forward. In a way thats how a Sociology class functions. It was essential to understand the arguments from both sides to justify the titles. Period.

In a Sociology class I cannot just stand in front of my students and say That 377 is unconstitutional now that means everything is good . But everybody knows thats not the ground reality, I mean we who are privilege , well educated or are living in a good society know that its not a sin. to be homosexual and that they are not vulnerable , but majority in the society still oppose homosexuality and consider it a sin . You go to villages or less urban areas you’ll know the ground reality. Hence it is my job to teach my students that No, kids the society does not function that way , even if the law is out most of the time it doesn’t reach the masses .

Now talking about the readings Yes ,the readings sent to the students were not the essential readings but reference readings

(as mention this will help you in understanding the ground reality homosexuality in India in one of the mail) to construct various argument-for and against as in the online method of teaching a direct communication was not possible.

Students were aware about my teaching methodology ,also it was communicated in the physical class .

First of all as a teacher isn’t it my right or my job to send something extra to the kids which might help them in understanding certain situations and reality and might help them in future, I believe a teacher should share as much knowledge as they can. If sending extra material for them to study is the point of argument then I worry about the situation of the education system.

Moving forward,

So to counter the argument that no material was hannded to the students i want to shed some light on these dates,

On 11th April ,also I had first forwarded the regular PPT and then in my subsequent mail I sent theses material. On previous day that was, 10 April , material on homosexuality was sent, and same was done on 13th April (12th April was Sunday so no material was communicated) on the said date material was handed over to students.( but only a specific part of material sent on 11 is highlighted) After lock down also in online classes each topic has been covered within 5-6 days and every day the material was sent .

As aftermath of sending study material the first series of the said incident happened on April 11, the material was highlighted and critically commented by two students [...] and [...] and they wrote a mail to me regarding clarification. Before I could have seen the mail and clarify their doubts ( within few hours) they have shared it to their friends outside NLUJ and students have started posting against me on social media(including the students who were not the part of Faculty of Humanities and social Science and were not aware about my teaching methodology).

Within the few hours same group of students deleted the post. I sent them a mail regarding the clarifications the very next day ie April 12, 2020 the concerned students ( [...] and [...]) had sent me apology regarding the posting on social media stating that out of ‘frustration she has communicated it to her friends and they have posted on social media’. She also stated that it was a misunderstanding and same is clarified after my mail.

In the backdrop of such incidents, I came to know that interim students body of NLUJ has submitted a representation to Honb’le Vice Chancellor against me and mentioned that I sent them response mail just to cover-up the things. (I have a proof a mail of April 3rd that shows all material was with me on April 3rd and it was not afterthought) I also came to know through social media that some of alumni with the leadership of [...] ( former student of NLUJ) also have submitted the representation regarding the study material posted and other allegation on me. I would like to draw your attention to few points to be considered:

  • The first communication regarding material held between me and [...] and [...] and same was sorted out( I may show you the mail regarding the same)if the matter was sort out then what was the need of sending such representations?
  • It was mentioned that study material is homophobic but to support that only the opposite side of arguments were highlighted. I am attaching the material (with red Highlight)to understand that whether it was really homophobic?
  • In order to understand the reasoning about, why material has been sent? I think I justify in the initial part of this mail. The study material was not mentioned in the curriculum as a essential reading but due to lockdown a need was felt to send some material which may help students to construct the arguments.
  • I was alleged that another material discussing the legal development was not posted whereas the material was posted on April 13, as April 12 was Sunday and I was not suppose to send any material to students on that day.
  • It was also remarked in representation that I have asked students to prepare the study material whereas that was an effort on my side to give them an opportunity to be a part of teaching pedagogy and said students were asked to submit the assignment on Homosexuality and they were supposed to submit the same by April 14,along with all the students of the batch as a test .(I have already posted all material before that on April 13)
  • It was also asked to have a peer review of course- reality is that all courses taught in the University are undergoing regress review by experts.
  • I was also alleged on me about the biased remarks on students but not a single remark was highlighted as an example.( I am enclosing the mail sent by other students to support me stating that I am like ‘mother figure’ for them and I have high morals)
  • Very surprisingly if you notice that in that representation in the last line it was mentioned that ‘it is not the representation of formal Alumni Association rather only a group of said students have submitted the representation’ but it was highlighted as the alumni Association has submitted the representation. The reality is the other alumni were reluctant about this approach of some students and out of approximately 1600-1700 students pass out from university hardly such number of students were able to met with allegations)
  • It was also highlighted in the representation of student’s body that these all were afterthought to save my side. But I have a proof( Mail of April 3, 2020indicating that all that material was with me- details about this is mentioned in last Para)

As a teacher what was my fault? Is it a fault that I wanted to teach them in-depthly, I wanted to sensitises them about the topic?

I would like to make an analogy here with the ongoing COVID-19, everyday government and medial departments share facts and figures, s and consequences for some these facts are horrifying and some of them out of anxiety commit suicide (as done by some)- do government stop talking about all facts and figures?

I think I clarify my stand that we need to understand social realities and for this reason the approach in a law class and in a sociology class would be different. I believe that to bring the social change firstly we need to recognise them and then we star altering them. I also want to contribute here that this is a special course designed to integrate law and sociology and fulfils the objective of integrated studies in law schools. This is a special course ( paper) that has been administrating only in NLUJ.

What happened in this incident were a very shocking and a surprising experience, which I had never dealt with in my entire career( I have been associated with NLUJ since its inception-about 19 years ) and it has left scars on me and my image. This is not only dimming my image as teacher and a person but also creating a lot of mental pressure for me.

The act done by only few students out of their personal anxiety is putting a question mark on all the efforts which I have been putting for the class . (though the concerned students themselves admitted that I am putting commendable and sincere efforts in class teaching) My worries are students without understanding and knowing the facts very aggressively reacting to the issue and also have been posting on the social media.. The best solution was that students directly would have approached to me before sending any representation but none of them have done this not sought any clarification( but falsely mentioned that when I approached I answered like this-----) from me except a communication through mail happened between me and [...]. I realize that the approach of students in all these series of incidents was to have a win –win situation over a teaching faculty. Repetition of same kind of action can threaten my image as teacher and person and the remaining students can be misguided easily.

Click to show 93 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.