That the code by which this forum is governed is the Code to Combat Sexual Harassment,

2002. The Code in clear language, under rule 16, describes the only and only case in which an
adverse inference be drawn against an alleged perpetrator of unwelcome sexual conduct or
sexual harassment. These are:

1. the alleged perpetrator is in an official position of authority,

supervisory, evaluatory, Of otherwise and
2. the person making the complaint of sexual harassment as a person over whom such
authority is exercised and
3. the harassment is of a nature where submission to or rejection of
sexual advances or overtures, or requests for sexual favors are made a ground for any
decision relating to employment, academic pursuit. extra or co-curricular activities or
entitlement to services/opportunities at NLSIU.

That it is clear from the facts of the current matter that the respondent is not falling under any
of the above cases and therefore this case should not place an adverse inference on the
respondent. That the respondent was not under the duty to prove that the said incidents did not
happen. That it was the burden on the complainant to construct and prove an arguable case
against the respondent. That the respondent, in light of the produced evidence and the know
principles of justice vehemently denies that any such case has been made against him which is
based on concrete evidence and unshakeable proof.

B) [n detemlining the punishmcnt, the inquiry panel shall consider the previous record of
the perpetrator under the Code (ifany), and the extent of victimization (Ifany).

To prove that the alleged incident happened at the party, the complainant has provided an
event immediately post the incident which tries to corroborate the happening of the alleged
event in question. Firstly, she narrates the incident where the complainant told Megha
mathur (then fifth year student) at the end of the party, that she did not want to travel in
the same cab as the respondent. Then, some tall dark senior guided her to a different cab.
That she later herself contradicted that it was a car driven by Mr. Sikander with two juniors
and a senior inside. The testimonies of none of the above mentioned 6 people were
provided regardless of the fact that they would have been more proximate and relevant
witnesses to the alleged incident. That the respondent here claims that such an event never
happened and since the described event has only been constructed by the complainant to
establish that the alleged wrongful incident happened. It is an ample indication of the fact
that the earlier wrongful incident never happened and it is all a construct.
returned to the campus. She narrated the event to Ms. Anita Srinivasan who was sitting
along with Ms. Chetna Kumar outside the Nilgiris hostel.