A five-member fact-finding committee at Jadavpur University has concluded its investigation into a serious controversy within the International Relations (IR) department, submitting a report that found the findings to be "inconclusive." The probe was initiated following a complaint by a student against an associate professor for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the Indian Constitution and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
The Core Allegations and Contradictory Statements
The controversy erupted when a second-year student from the IR department filed a formal complaint. The student accused the associate professor of making hateful comments against the Constitution, including a statement to "tear apart the Constitution and throw it into water." Further, the complaint alleged that the teacher attacked the legacy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar by questioning the utility of studying him and his constitutional debates.
However, the committee's investigation hit a dead end due to starkly opposing accounts. The student firmly stood by her allegations, while the accused professor categorically denied all charges. According to a senior official, the professor reportedly claimed the complaint was filed with the intention to defame him. This fundamental contradiction formed the core of the panel's challenge.
Why the Probe Could Not Establish Facts
The committee, which was formed on December 16, faced a significant hurdle: a complete lack of corroborative evidence. The central incident involved a conversation that took place over a WhatsApp call, which, by its nature, could not be recorded or presented as concrete proof. With no third-party witnesses to the exchange, the panel found it impossible to verify either version of events definitively.
"The panel submitted its report, and nothing was established," explained the official. "The complainant's and the accused teacher's statements were completely contradictory... It was difficult to prove the allegations as there was no evidence or witnesses to the incident." This absence of tangible proof led directly to the inconclusive outcome.
Implications and Next Steps
The submission of the inconclusive report to the Vice-Chancellor marks a critical juncture but not necessarily an end to the matter. The university administration must now decide on the future course of action. The case highlights the complexities involved in adjudicating serious allegations in the absence of direct evidence, especially when they occur in private digital spaces.
The row has undoubtedly stirred discussions on campus about constitutional values and academic discourse. While the fact-finding committee has completed its mandated task, the contradictory statements and the gravity of the accusations mean the issue may require further administrative or ethical review by the university authorities to reach a final resolution.
