.jpg?rect=0%2C0%2C1920%2C1080&auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
In the ensuing debate over the suicide of Amity Law School, Delhi student Sushant Rohilla last week, the college administration on Wednesday denied all claims of its involvement in his death.
In a press conference, the top brass of the college asserted that they did not make any arbitrary decisions on attendance or detention, a fact that has been deemed as the cause of death by his family and friends.
Sushant was reportedly told, in May, that he would be debarred from appearing in his exams due to his inability to fulfil the 75% attendance requirement, but he could still progress to the next year. It was only in July that he was told that he would be detained for the entire year. This information, his family said, led him to take an extreme step.
‘Sushant and His Family Were Informed of His Attendance’
Probably the most debated fact about Sushant’s death has been his email to the Founder Director of the college, pleading him that he be allowed to sit for examinations and not get detained for the entire year.
Students alleged that the email went unread and that the college did not communicate with him.
Countering this, Dr Gurinder Singh, Group Vice Chancellor, Amity, said that both Sushant and his family were informed about his attendance in three separate mails. He further added that Sushant’s family knew about his low attendance, but never came to meet the authorities to discuss it.
The administration also informed that he was given a grace attendance of 14% for his participation in extra-curricular activities, but despite that his attendance was way below the minimum requirement of 75%.
The students, who were still protesting outside the campus, countered the college’s arguments.
A student outside the college told The Quint that the information given to media outlets was misleading. He said that with the amount of work he did during moots and other activities, he should have been granted enough extra attendance to reach the 75% mark.
Students Counter the College’s Narrative
The college also claimed that his marks in previous semesters were extremely low, which was reason enough to detain him.
They added that his parents were told about the same.
Countering the claim that while the college’s affiliate university had sent Sushant’s admit card, the college withheld it, Dr BK Bandopadhyaya, Acting Chairperson of Amity Law Schools, said:
The university assumes that all students are eligible for exams. It was after the cards came to us that we communicated to them that 17 students had to be detained. That’s when the cards were returned.
Speaking with The Quint, a student at the college raised a question in response to the college’s claim:
“If Sushant’s academic performance and attendance was low and if he was a ‘weak’ student, then why was he made the head of several extra-curricular societies? Why wasn’t he stopped? When it came to save him, they washed their hands off.”
Another student said that by portraying him as “weak”, dirty tricks are being played to defame the deceased student’s character.
If the family did not have a problem, why are they protesting now? Sushant’s sister was here today seeking justice. His uncle has been asking for justice. Why are they speaking up?A student to The Quint
Opposing Versions on Past Grievances by Students
When asked about the scores of students and ex-students who have come out to speak about the harassment faced from the college, especially at the hands of Professor Isheeta Rutabhasini, the authorities claimed that they never received any complaints.
They added that the college has a redressal forum, a claim that students counter by dubbing the committee a toothless body, one that exists only on paper.
The college further asserted that the redressal forum is headed by a Ms Gita Garg. When The Quint tried to verify this claim, it turned out that the forum is headed by Ms Isheeta.
“The grievances committee is headed by Isheeta, which is a joke. She is the same person who has been harassing us and other students. You are basically asking us to share our grievances with the person who is the problem,” a visibly furious student told The Quint.
When repeatedly questioned on harrowing experiences of students in the past, the authorities dismissed the allegations, adding that it does not pertain to Sushant’s case.
A faculty member on condition of anonymity told The Quint that “most of these students are not even from the college and are making these things up to be a part of the herd.”
She added that if Sushant was indeed troubled by the college, “why din’t he choose to mention that in his suicide note.”
Although the top brass absolved itself of any blame, students said that some faculty members support them.
“Some of us are with the students on some issues. We will not be deducting their attendance for being a part of the protest. It’s obviously become a major concern,” another faculty member told The Quint on condition of anonymity.
In a document obtained by The Quint, the college has asked two of its faculty members to go on a “forced leave” and appointed a new head.
An enquiry has been set up to investigate the role of some members of faculty. The committee is set to submit its report on Friday.
Sushant’s family and friends at the protest kept saying that his death should not be politicised.
With the current blame game between students and college authorities, the wish, unfortunately, might not come true.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)