Colleges asked to upload ICC details on central portal
The 'sexual harassment electronic box' (SHe-Box) is an initiative of the ministry of women and child development to provide single-window access to all women, irrespective of their work status. In the portal, details of ICC/local committees and the number of complaints received and disposed of under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, will be displayed.
Uploading details of ICCs at the department/office level is one of the key tasks under the portal. For the purpose, regional directors of education (RDEs) have been appointed as nodal officers in their zones, and the details of zonal nodal officers have been uploaded on the portal.
Higher educational institutes have been urged to update the password and upload the details of ICC and other information on the portal.
The move follows the self-immolation of a college student in Balasore recently, alleging inaction over sexual harassment complaint against her head of department, which led to widespread outrage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
4 minutes ago
- Hans India
2008 Malegaon Blast Case: Special NIA court acquits all 7 accused
Mumbai: Seventeen years after the blast, a special NIA court in Mumbai has acquitted all the seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The NIA court, in its judgment, said the prosecution had 'failed to prove the case' and that the accused 'deserved the benefit of doubt'. The provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were not applicable to the case, the court said. The judge observed that the prosecution could not prove that the bike to which the bomb was allegedly strapped, belonged to Pragya Thakur. Pragya Thakur had turned into a sansyasi two years before the bomb blast took place in Malegaon. She had already given up all the material things in life before the incident happened, the court hard to establish prosecution's claims that there were any conspiracy between the accused. There is no evidence to prove the claims that an organisation named Abhinav Bharat that was founded by Pragya Thakur and Col Purohit, used the funds generated through the organisation to execute the bomb blast, the court further observed. The court also said there was no evidence to prove that Lt Col Purohit had sourced RDX from Kashmir and assembled the bomb at his residence. On September 29, 2008, a bomb exploded in Malegaon, Nashik district, killing 10 and injuring over 100 people. A case was filed by the Azad Nagar police station but later re-registered by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) in November 2008 and charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were applied. In January 2009, the ATS filed its first chargesheet followed it with a supplementary chargesheet in April 2011. However, in April 2011, the Ministry of Home Affairs suo motu directed the NIA to take up further investigation of the case. In May 2016, the NIA had filed its second supplementary chargesheet and dropped MCOCA charges against former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi. In December 2017, Special Judge S D Tekale dropped MCOCA charges and charged them under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. All the accused are currently on bail.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Malegaon blast case: Bomb could have been placed later on motorbike, says judge
MUMBAI: Thursday's judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case , in which all seven accused were acquitted, also focused on the failure to establish that a bomb was fitted inside a motorcycle. Based on the evidence, the judge said a bomb could have been placed later on the bike. Refuting the prosecution's case, the judge also noted that it could not be proved that the bike on which the bomb was allegedly fitted belonged to Thakur, that RDX was procured by Lt Col Prasad Purohit from Kashmir, or that he assembled the bomb. The judge also found sanction orders granted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to be defective and invalid, issued without "application of judicial mind". The NIA judge said the conspiracy in Malegaon blast case remained unproven due to absence of evidence and witnesses who would testify that a series of meetings were held by the organisation named Abhinav Bharat to plan the attack. ATS probes focused on the alleged conspiracy by a group intent on avenging perceived atrocities against Hindus. The crux of prosecution's case was that the plot revealed an effort to strike terror by orchestrating a bomb blast in Malegaon, a Muslim-dominated area. However, the judge said to show that the main elements of the conspiracy were finalised at Faridabad and Bhopal, the prosecution was not supported by "material witnesses" and the testimony of those who did was not "reliable and acceptable... by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo other meetings which were held at Kolkata, Indore, Ujjain, Nashik and Pune, no acceptable evidence is present on these on record... witnesses have retracted from their earlier statements given to ATS. Therefore, neither conspiracy is proved nor meetings are proved," the judge said. While it was alleged that that accused Ajay Rahirkar, acting as treasurer of Abhinav Bharat, collected donations and distributed funds to Lt Col Prasad Purohit, who was a trustee, as well as to Sudhakar Dhar Diwedi and Major Ramesh Upadhyay (Retd), Purohit used these funds for personal expenses, including house construction and paying for LIC policies. "But there was no evidence that the said amount was used for terrorist activities," the judge said. The retraction by 39 of 323 prosecution witnesses of statements given to ATS considerably weakened the case. "Testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions," the judge said. Referring to procedural shortcomings, the judge was critical of the handling of the crime scene. It was revealed that no rough sketch map was drawn, and the spot was not immediately barricaded, leading to contamination. The judge pointed out that a mob gathered at the spot after the blast, pelted stones, vandalised cars, caused damage to a police chowki, and snatched the firearms of police officers. He said a counterattack by police involved lathicharge, firing, and use of grenades. Despite the presence of a fingerprint expert, no prints, DNA samples, or other critical data were collected at the spot. The judge said since the spot was contaminated, analysis of articles found could not be considered 100% accurate anyway. Even material seized such as mobiles and laptops were not sealed as per due process. The judgment also raised concerns about procedures adopted for collecting voice samples and intercepting mobile communication. The judge observed that interceptions were not authorised in the specific period, and permissions were obtained belatedly. This rendered the intercepted data unusable as evidence. It was also noted that "narco analysis was carried out of the accused by ATS but not supported by documents and it was not filed on record". The judgment even raised concerns about planting of evidence and tampering of material. It has called for an inquiry into the actions of ATS officer Shekhar Bagade, whose presence at an accused's house was seen to be under suspicious circumstances. "House search of accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi tilt towards planting (of RDX) in the light of evidence of record. There was no conscious possession over the house, and articles, found at the relevant time," the judge said. Chaturvedi was accused of assembling the bomb at his home, a claim he denied. The judge pointed out that despite allegations that Purohit had brought RDX from Kashmir, no evidence was presented to show its storage at his house or its use in assembling the bomb. Interestingly, NIA's supplementary chargesheet in May 2016 had accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame Purohit and, notably, gave a clean chit to Pragya Thakur and others, citing insufficient evidence. Despite NIA's stance, the special court, on Dec 27, 2017, ruled that seven accused, including Thakur and Purohit, would face trial under UAPA, though charges under MCOCA were dropped. In his concluding remarks Thursday, the judge expressed awareness of "agony, frustration and trauma caused to society at large, more particularly to the family of victims, by the fact that a crime of this nature has gone unpunished". "However law does not permit the court to convict the accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion," the judge said. As per the judgment, a compensation of Rs 2 lakh is to be paid to families of those who died in the blast, while the 95 injured will receive Rs 50,000 each. The case, meanwhile, will continue against two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra & Sandeep Dange. Five different judges have so far presided over proceedings. The tenure of the current judge, A K Lahoti, was recently extended by Bombay high court till Aug 31, 2025 to ensure he could deliver the verdict.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Malegaon blast case: UAPA sanctions invalid, terror charge can't stick, rules court
MUMBAI: Special trial judge A K Lahoti, in a key finding that led to the collapse of the Malegaon blast case , held that the prior sanction under the anti-terror law UAPA against the accused was "invalid." It was issued without judicious application of mind, and the mandatory twin test safeguard required by law was not scrupulously followed, the court said. The judge analysed Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which outlines procedural safeguards. Section 45(1) requires valid sanction from the Centre or state govt to prosecute any terror offence under the Act. Section 45(2) mandates an independent review of the evidence by an authority appointed by the govt. Lt Col Prasad Purohit, through his counsel Shrikant Shivade (who passed away in 2022) and later advocate Viral Babar, had consistently argued that the UAPA sanction was flawed. Other accused also challenged the validity of the Jan 2009 sanction and another issued in 2011 by the additional chief secretary (home). The trial court held both sanctions to be "defective." While the prosecution claimed it had followed the twin test, the court said there was no evidence it was done as mandated under Section 45(2). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You) Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Search Now Undo "The sanction is not a curable defect. So, all the provisions of UAPA will not be invoked," the judge ruled. Advocates Ranjeet Sangle (for Sudhakar Dwivedi) and J P Mishra (for Sadhvi Pragya Singh) also argued that the first sanction bypassed the statutory safeguard under Section 45(2), and that the absence of such review invalidated the trial court's cognisance of UAPA charges. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal had contended that the sanction's validity could only be decided during the trial, a view echoed by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, the special judge reviewed the sanctioning procedure and found that UAPA charges could not be sustained due to the faulty sanction. Shivade had also pointed out that the authority did not comply with the mandatory safeguard of an additional review committee required under law since Dec 31, 2008. The prosecution argued that since the crime occurred in Sept 2008, the earlier 2004 provision-without the second review-was applicable. But the Supreme Court clarified in 2023 that the UAPA's procedural safeguards during sanction are mandatory.
