Internal Committee – PES University

Internal Committee – PES University
About
Academics
Admissions
Placements
NAAC
Research
Campus Life
Students
Parents
Alumni
Work with us
Giving to PES
Contact
Events
News
Students
Parents
Alumni
Work With Us
Giving to PES
Contact
Apply
Programs
Internal Committee
Members of Internal Committee
#
Name
designation
email id
1
Dr. Pooja Agarwal, Professor, CSE
Presiding Officer
poojaagarwal@pes.edu
2
Dr. Anitha N, Associate Professor, S&H
Member
nanitha@pes.edu
3
Dr. Keya Das
Member
psychiatry@pesuimsr.pes.edu
4
Dr. Shashikala Srinivas
Member
ankitapandey@pes.edu
5
Dr. Ankita Pandey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law
Member
ankitapandey@pes.edu
6
Mr. Sajeev Nair, Assistant
Professor, Faculty of Management
Member
sajeevnair@pes.edu
7
Dr. Vishnu Prasad C, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Commerce
Member
chandvinishekar@gmail.com
8
Mrs. Jayshree Nadig Student Counselor
Member
jayshreenadig@pes.edu
9
Ms. Ritu Ponnamma, Office Assistant, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Member
pesuicmember@pes.edu
10
Mr. Raghavendra R, PhD Research Scholar,(Commerce)
Member
pesuicmember@pes.edu
11
Ms. Sahana M (MCA student)
Member
pesuicmember@pes.edu
12
Ms. Manya Udaya Shetty (BTech student- CSE)
Member
pesl ug23am 168@pesu.pes.edu
13
Mrs. Rekha
Ramachandran, Founder and Secretary, Disha charitable trust for value initiatives, Bangalore.
Member from NGO
reka.disha@gmail.com
Vishakha Guidelines
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment in August 1997 (Vishaka & others vs. the State of Rajasthan & others) stated that every instance of sexual harassment is a violation of “Fundamental Rights” under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and amounts to a violation of the “Right to Freedom” under Article 19 (1)(g).
In the Vishakha case, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines on tackling the problem of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Backstory: A 50-something social worker, Bhanwari Devi was gang-raped by a group of upper class, influential men, because she had tried to stop the practice of child marriage in her village near Jaipur. Determined to get justice, Bhanwari Devi lodged a case against the offenders. However, the accused were acquitted by a trial court, because everyone, including the village authorities, doctors and the police, dismissed her situation.
This injustice inspired several women’s groups and NGOs to file a petition in the Supreme Court under the collective platform of Vishakha (Vishakha and others V. State of Rajasthan and others, 1997). They demanded justice for Bhanwari Devi and urged action against sexual harassment at the workplace.
The Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as any unwelcome gesture, behavior, words or advances that are sexual in nature. The court, for the first time, drew upon an international human rights law instrument, the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), to pass a set of guidelines that are popularly known as Vishakha Guidelines, which include:
It is the onus of the employer to include a rule in the company code of conduct for preventing sexual harassment
Organizations must establish committees that are headed by women.
Initiate disciplinary actions against offenders and safeguard the interests of the victim.
Female employees shall be made aware of their rights.
Before 1997, women experiencing sexual harassment at workplace had to lodge a complaint under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 354 and 509. Subsequently, the committee as envisaged in the Vishakha judgment has de facto authority and legal status.
Pursuant to the Vishaka judgment, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, were amended in 1998 to incorporate r. 3C which prohibits sexual harassment of working women.
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, r. 3C states that:
No government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual harassment of any woman at her work place.
Every government servant who is in charge of a workplace shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any woman at such workplace.
Though not mentioned categorically, this rule invariably applies to all women, whether working in a government set up or coming in contact with government office/officials.
Further the Supreme Court in its judgment in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others vs. Union of India and Others has directed that the committee as envisaged in the Vishaka judgment will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the report of the committee will be deemed to be an inquiry report under those rules.
In pursuance of this direction, the Central Government (Department of Personnel and Training) has amended Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, r. 14, sub-r. (2) to incorporate the necessary provision.
Emerging from the Vishakha judgment, after several drafts THE PROTECTION OF WOMENAGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE BILL, 2010 was cleared by Parliament on November 4,2010. Importantly, the bill provides protection not only to women employees, but to any woman who enters the workplace as a client, customer, apprentice, daily-wage worker or in ad-hoc capacity. Students, research scholars in colleges/university and patients in hospitals have also been covered. Pending enactment of this Bill, the Vishakha guidelines continue to prevail as a mechanism to resolve issues.
PESU Code on prevention of sexual harassment
Prevention of Sexual
Harassment Act
(POSH 2023)
University Grants Commission Regulations, 2015.
Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions.
PESU ICC guidelines
PESU Bot
Powered by
NiTH
Register for PESSAT
Request a Call Back
Email