Author: Shruthika. S, Tamil Nadu National Law University
TO THE POINT
Sexual harassment in Indian universities has shifted from a hidden issue to a widespread crisis one that can no longer be ignored. While legislation such as the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the POSH Act) exists, its implementation within academic spaces often appears superficial. Many institutions seem more focused on formal compliance than on meaningful action.
The 2024 Anna University sexual assault case, in which a student was raped on campus, shattered any illusion of safety within Indian higher education. The university’s response following the incident exposed troubling gaps. Are universities genuinely dedicated to student protection, or are they merely fulfilling procedural obligations while deeper issues go unaddressed? The events at Anna University suggest the latter, highlighting an urgent need for institutional accountability and genuine reform.
ABSTRACT
This article takes a close look at the disconnect between the legal obligations under the POSH Act and how Indian universities often respond to sexual harassment issues. Using the shocking case at Anna University and what followed, it examines the roles played by university authorities, government agencies, and political figures. It emphasizes how, despite having laws in place, achieving justice is often delayed, denied, or weakened by inaction and intimidation. The article ends with some practical suggestions for reforms aimed at moving beyond superficial compliance toward creating a culture built on transparency, accountability, and genuine student safety.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Sexual harassment in educational institutions is covered under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly called the POSH Act. This law was introduced after a key Supreme Court decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which set the stage for protecting women from harassment in workplaces, including schools and colleges. Under the POSH Act, every university or higher education institute must establish an Internal Committee (IC) to look into complaints of sexual harassment. The law says that the IC should be made up of members who are trained in gender sensitivity, work independently, and resolve issues within a set time. Schools and colleges are also required to run regular awareness campaigns, keep confidentiality, and protect the complainant’s safety during the process.
However, even though the law is in place, often the true intention behind it is missing. Many universities, including well-known government colleges, treat the POSH rules as just a formality. The Internal Committees are sometimes just on paper and lack independence, aren’t properly trained, or don’t function effectively. Fear of damaging their reputation often causes institutions to silence survivors, delay investigations, or even pressure victims to drop their complaints.
This disturbing reality became clear in the Anna University sexual assault case of December 2024. A male staff member raped a 19-year-old student on campus. Although the university had an Internal Committee, it didn’t create a safe space or respond quickly. It was only after public protests, media coverage, and student activism that authorities took the case seriously, which eventually led to the attacker being convicted.
This case emphasizes a big gap between following the law and actually keeping students safe. Having a committee in place didn’t stop the crime or immediately help the victim. It points to a widespread failure in how things are actually put into practice, where procedures exist mainly to tick boxes rather than genuinely protect students.
After the incident, journalists who tried to investigate and expose the lapses faced intimidation from authorities. Their phones were taken by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), and they were questioned intensely. Such actions are worrying because they go against Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and press.
In short, the Anna University case goes beyond about a terrible crime—it’s a clear example of how institutions, despite legal obligations, often fail to protect victims. Instead, they focus on protecting their reputation, political interests, or administrative convenience. This deep-rooted ‘Institutional patriarchy’ promotes a culture of silencing, complicity, and neglect, which undermines the purpose of the POSH Act and erodes students’ trust across the country.
THE PROOF
The facts are quite clear. In December 2024, a 19-year-old engineering student at Anna University was assaulted on campus by a staff member. While Gnanasekaran was quickly convicted and sentenced to life in prison within just five months, this quick legal response also emphasized some bigger problems.
Many girls on campus still said they didn’t feel safe. The university didn’t really answer questions about night-time security cameras or whether the hostel gates were always open. Their silence after the incident made it seem like they didn’t really care. To make matters worse, opposition leaders suggested that the accused might have links to the ruling DMK party, which led to accusations of trying to cover things up.
The Madras High Court even commented on how the case was being politicized and warned against using it for election tactics. What’s even more concerning is that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) took the phones of journalists who had reported on the incident. This unsettling move not only threatened press freedom but also raised serious questions about whether the state was more interested in controlling what people say than in delivering justice.
CASE LAWS
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
The cornerstone judgment where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at workplaces, later codified in the POSH Act. Despite being landmark, implementation remains weak.
Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013)
The Court reiterated the need for strict compliance with Vishaka Guidelines, noting that mere formation of committees is insufficient unless they function independently and effectively.
Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba Case (2014)
Demonstrated how internal committees were used to delay justice or silence students highlighting that institutional mechanisms often prioritize reputation over redressal.
Anna University Incident (2024) (Reported Case)
Although resulting in conviction, it exposed institutional and political rot. The university’s silence and continued neglect of student safety reflect deep institutional complicity.
CONCLUSION
Sexual harassment in Indian universities continues not because of a lack of laws, but because institutions often lack the will to act. The POSH Act sets out a strong legal framework, but all too often, universities treat compliance as just paperwork. They tend to focus more on their reputation, funding, and political interests than on actually protecting students. The case of Anna University, while deeply disturbing, also emphasizes needing real change. Universities need to take concrete steps like:
Making sure Internal Committees are truly functional and independent
Regularly checking safety measures through third-party audits
Establishing protection policies for students who blow the whistle
Sharing reports from Internal Committees publicly, while respecting privacy
Allowing students to report issues anonymously online
Only when universities see harassment as a serious, ongoing problem not just a PR headache will commitment turn into real accountability.
FAQS
1. What is the POSH Act and how does it apply to universities?
The POSH Act, 2013 mandates universities to establish Internal Committees, conduct awareness programs, and ensure a safe environment. It applies to all institutions where women are present, including colleges.
2. Did Anna University follow the POSH Act?
While Anna University had a committee in place, the delay in addressing complaints, lack of campus security, and their silence post-incident show non-functional compliance.
3. Can journalists be targeted under the law for reporting sexual harassment cases?
No. Targeting journalists for reporting such matters violates their constitutional right to freedom of speech and amounts to suppression of the press.
4. What role does institutional complicity play?
Complicity arises when institutions prioritize image over justice—ignoring, delaying, or covering up sexual harassment complaints instead of transparently addressing them.
5. What reforms are needed in Indian universities?
Key reforms include strengthening ICs, ensuring student representation, third-party safety audits, better grievance redressal, whistleblower protection, and depoliticization of inquiry processes.
