Author: Harleen Kaur, D. Y. Patil Law College
To the Point
On June 25, 2025, a 24‑year‑old law student was allegedly gang‑raped inside the guard room of South Calcutta Law College by Monojit Mishra, Zaib Ahmed, and Pramit Mukherjee. Investigations have revealed not only chilling acts of violence—such as assault with a hockey stick—but also deep-seated institutional corruption, including the hiring of Mishra on staff without proper screening and active suppression of complaints by corrupt college employees
Legal Jargon
Section 375 IPC defines rape, with punishment under Section 376 IPC. Additional charges include criminal intimidation (Section 506) and cheating (Section 417), reflecting allegations that Mishra promised a relationship to the survivor. For victim privacy, Section 228A applies. Procedural protections under Section 164 CrPC ensure that recorded statements are legally admissible. Institutional obligations are governed by the POSH Act 2013 and the UGC Regulations 2015, which mandate Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in educational institutions. Failure to meet these obligations constitutes institutional liability.
Proof
Police swiftly raided the campus and recovered a hockey stick used in the assault, hair clumps, an alleged rape recording, and CCTV footage capturing the incident. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) is questioning 17 witnesses and analyzing 42 CCTV feeds . Mishra has dismissed the allegations as consensual, blindsiding the gravity of the evidence. A five‑hour crime‑scene re‑enactment took place in the college premises. Notably, Mishra, previously a politically connected student union leader, was employed by the college post‑graduation—without due diligence—as a contractual staff member, enabling him access and authority on campus. A 2018 principal’s letter warned the police of his disruptive behavior, indicating longstanding institutional awareness.
Abstract
This case underscores the intersection of sexual violence, institutional capture, and legal impunity. The alleged assault, committed openly within college premises and followed by claims of intimidation and suppression, exemplifies grievous institutional failure. The convergence of criminal violence, academic sanction, and political influence paints a disturbing picture of higher education spaces as unregulated zones where powerful perpetrators can act with impunity.
Case Laws
Institutions are legally required to prevent sexual harassment under Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and UGC’s 2015 regulations; their failure invites accountability. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court clarified that delays in reporting rape are not indicative of falsehood—applicable here, as the FIR was registered after police involvement. Recent jurisprudence like Lilu @ Rajesh v. Haryana (2013) limits attacking a complainant’s character.
Reconnection with R. G. Kar Medical College Case
Nearly a year prior, in August 2024, a 31‑year‑old postgraduate doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College was raped and murdered—another appalling institutional failure that provoked nationwide protest and judicial intervention. In response, the Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI probe. Also, the Supreme Court formed a task force under Article 32 for medico‑workplace safety. The father of the R. G. Kar victim condemned the repetition of such horrors, urging that “government has a role” in ensuring safety, noting that “such incidents are happening again and again”.
The South Calcutta case echoes the same institutional culture of impunity: politically connected perpetrators, lax or corrupt administration, and delayed justice. Both incidents reveal how even high-profile institutions fail to safeguard women when reputation supersedes accountability.
Conclusion
The South Calcutta Law College gang‑rape case exposes a multi-layered breakdown: criminal violence, institutional complicity, administrative corruption, and inadequate legal enforcement. Despite strong laws, effective deterrence remains lacking when institutions ignore obligations under POSH, engage in corrupt hiring, and fail to prosecute internal threats. The R. G. Kar case demonstrated that judicial and public oversight can yield reforms; yet, the recurrence of campus sexual violence reveals those measures are insufficient. To prevent such tragedies, colleges must rigorously implement ICC structures, enforce background screening, separate politics from governance, and prioritize transparent legal compliance over institutional prestige. Only then can justice be both served and seen to be served.
FAQs
Q1. What are the main charges?
Charges include Sections 375/376 (rape), 417 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation), with victim identity protections under Section 228A IPC. Statements were recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
Q2. Who are the accused?
The FIR names Monojit Mishra, Zaib Ahmed, and Pramit Mukherjee, along with the complicity of one security guard.
Q3. How was the college complicit?
The college employed Mishra post‑graduation without vetting and directed students to handle queries through him. It neglected ICC formation, ignored past complaints, and faculty feared retaliation.
Q4. What’s the link to R. G. Kar?
Both cases involve violent sexual assaults on campus, administrative inertia, political shielding of offenders, and renewed calls for systemic institutional reforms.
Q5. What must change?
Campuses need transparent ICCs, proactive background checks, decoupling of student politics from governance, judicial oversight of compliance, and independent audits tied to funding and accreditation.
