Educational institutions in India are infamous for concealing allegations of wrongdoing to preserve institutional reputations. Public confidence erodes by this propensity to hide instances of harassment, abuse, and carelessness. It also serves to maintain systemic flaws. By discouraging victims from coming forward, this playbook creates an atmosphere that fosters violence and harassment. There are apprehensions that transparently handling wrongdoing could result in bad press that could impact financing and student enrolment. Financial reliance on donors or political lobbies also discourage administrations from pursuing strong action or owning accountability.

This problem is additionally exacerbated by the law. Organizations continue to conceal misconduct despite a weak enforcement framework and lenient penalties. Prolonged complaint resolution processes deter victims from reporting occurrences and enable organizations to avoid prompt accountability, thus sustaining institutional impunity.

Vague definitions of malfeasance and insufficient safeguards for whistleblowers also allow organizations to evade accountability. Administrations are able to take advantage of these vulnerabilities in the absence of clear norms and strong oversight systems, thereby silencing victims and sustaining systemic problems in the educational sector.

In the US, schools that receive federal funds are required to address and correct cases of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and assault, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Noncompliance by institutions may result in the loss of federal funding.

In the United Kingdom, the Office for Students (OfS) monitors universities as a regulatory agency. Universities that violate mandatory requirements, like safeguarding students from sexual harassment and misconduct, may face fines, suspension, or even deregistration from the OfS. This strict regulatory framework guarantees that educational institutions continue to be responsible for the well-being of their students and adhere to set standards.

However, India's enforcement agencies on higher education, such as the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) face routine criticisms. Both the bodies lack strict enforcement and sanctions. As a result, higher education institutions disregard their obligations without suffering serious consequences, in the process jeopardizing the safety and rights of students. Further, bureaucratic hold-ups prevent complaints from being promptly resolved.

A number of legislative changes are necessary to improve accountability in India's higher education institutions.

Firstly, it is imperative to establish required reporting procedures. Institutions must be obligated to notify an impartial regulatory agency of any misbehaviour, including financial fraud and harassment, within 48 hours of the incident. This quick reporting system would guarantee immediate action and stop cases from being internally suppressed. In addition to ensuring unbiased investigations, the establishment of an independent monitoring body would promote an open and accountable culture.

Institutions that suppress cases of misbehaviour ought to be subject to severe sanctions. Revocation of accreditation, reduction or termination of financing, and dismissal of responsible managing staff are possible sanctions. Such disciplinary actions would signify compliance with ethical norms in higher education institutions.

The BCI uses a number of regulations and guidelines to control professional conduct and legal education. But, there is a noticeable weakness in the way accountability measures for institutions are enforced. For example, although the BCI's Rules of Legal Education set forth requirements for law schools, they fail to address sanctions for establishments that conceal unlawful incidents.

To quicken the settlement of student claims, a specialized National Student Rights Tribunal must be established. In order to guarantee prompt and efficient justice, this tribunal should be mandated to settle cases within 30 to 60 days. The widespread problem of bureaucratic delays, which frequently deter victims from reporting occurrences and obstruct the administration of justice, would be addressed via a fast-track adjudication process.

Another crucial reform may be giving whistleblowers legal protection. Faculty and students who report wrongdoing must be protected from reprisals of any kind. Whistleblower protection laws applicable upon higher education institutions would foster more open and responsible institutional culture. All educational institutions should be required to submit annual transparency reports. Stakeholders would gain insight into the institution's dedication to legal compliance via these reports. This would include specifics of reported wrongdoings and the resolutions that followed.

A special clause could be included in the BCI Rules of Legal Education that addresses the institutional duty to stop and handle instances of violence, suicide, and harassment. Institutions must set up required procedures for reporting and dealing with violence, sexual assault, and other serious unlawful activities on campus. The Rules of Legal Education must incorporate sanctions against organizations which perpetuate concealment. BCI must exercise its authority to suspend accreditation or revoke recognition for law schools that fail to report or assist law enforcement officials with such events.

An impartial oversight committee should be set up by the BCI to examine how law schools respond to complaints about significant incidents and assess the effectiveness of their grievance redressal procedures in order to guarantee accountability and openness.

The committee's audits require cooperation from law schools, and on noncompliance with its recommendations, BCI should suspend accreditation or pursue legal action.

In serious situations like harassment, assault, suicides, and misconduct, both the UGC and BCI rules should be strengthened to provide a secure and encouraging atmosphere for instructors and students by adding independent monitoring, mental health support, required reporting requirements, and whistleblower protection.

Although the UGC Guidelines (such as the UGC Act, 1956 and the UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations, 2018) mandate that colleges set up grievance redressal procedures, they fall short of addressing institutional repression or negligence to report violence, harassment, or suicide instances.

Similar to this, the BCI Rules of Legal Education offer a framework for law school accreditation and operations, but they make no mention of institutional accountability for such serious instances or the requirement that these problems be reported to law enforcement.

Mandatory mental health services, such as counselling and suicide prevention programs, should be made available in educational institutions in order to prevent instances like suicides and to create a supportive environment. All employees and students should have access to these services, and there should be procedures in place for intervention if needed.

A whistleblower protection strategy in higher education institutions that ensures protection for individuals who disclose instances of wrongdoing, harassment, or violence must be enacted. This is necessary to guarantee a safe reporting environment and to stop retaliation against those who file complaints.

Higher education institutions are often able to put their own interests ahead of the interests of justice, and frequently repress harassment, violence, and suicides in order to preserve their reputations. Academic integrity, public confidence in the educational system, and student safety are all compromised by such avoidance. In order to ensure that institutions are held accountable for their acts and students are given a safe and supportive environment in which to flourish, extensive policy intervention is required to compel transparent, responsible practices. (The Leaflet — IPA Service)