Haryana Human Rights Commission has called for an explanation from OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat after a student accused two faculty members of harassment and discriminatory conduct, prompting the institution to suspend Associate Professor Sarover Zaidi pending an internal inquiry.The commission issued notice to the private university following a formal complaint that alleged targeted behaviour in an academic setting. According to officials familiar with the matter, the panel has sought a detailed response from the university administration within a stipulated timeframe, asking it to clarify the steps taken to ensure student safety, impartial inquiry and compliance with statutory norms governing higher education institutions.
OP Jindal Global University, founded in 2009 and recognised as a private university under Haryana legislation, confirmed that it had initiated internal proceedings under its established grievance redressal mechanisms. In a statement circulated to students and faculty, the university said Associate Professor Sarover Zaidi had been placed under suspension until completion of the inquiry, emphasising that the action was precautionary and did not amount to a finding of guilt. The administration added that it remained committed to “fairness, due process and zero tolerance for harassment or discrimination”.
Sarover Zaidi, a faculty member associated with social sciences and known for academic work on identity and community studies, has not publicly commented on the allegations. The second faculty member named in the complaint has not been suspended, though university officials indicated that both individuals would be subject to scrutiny under institutional rules.
The Haryana Human Rights Commission, a statutory body tasked with examining violations of human rights within the state’s jurisdiction, has in the past intervened in cases involving custodial violence, discrimination and alleged abuse in educational institutions. Legal experts note that while the commission’s recommendations are advisory in nature, its inquiries often influence administrative decisions and can lead to wider scrutiny by state authorities if systemic lapses are found.
The complaint has reignited debate about accountability frameworks in private universities, particularly those that operate as autonomous institutions with internal disciplinary codes. Higher education regulations require universities to maintain Internal Complaints Committees under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, as well as equal opportunity cells to address discrimination. Institutions are also expected to follow University Grants Commission guidelines on grievance redressal, though enforcement mechanisms can vary.
Students at the Sonipat campus described an atmosphere of uncertainty as the matter unfolded. Some called for greater transparency in the inquiry process, arguing that clear communication would prevent speculation and protect both complainants and the accused. Others urged restraint, stressing that allegations must be examined without prejudging outcomes. University authorities have advised the campus community to refrain from circulating unverified claims on social media, warning that such actions could undermine due process.
The episode comes at a time when higher education institutions across the country face increased scrutiny over campus climate and faculty conduct. Over the past decade, several universities have been compelled to strengthen oversight after complaints ranging from harassment to caste-based discrimination surfaced in academic spaces. Civil society groups have argued that institutional hierarchies can deter students from coming forward, particularly when allegations involve senior faculty members.
Legal scholars point out that suspension during inquiry is a common administrative measure intended to ensure that investigations proceed without interference. They caution, however, that such steps must be accompanied by adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right of the accused to respond to charges and the protection of complainants from retaliation. Failure to balance these considerations can expose institutions to litigation and reputational harm.
OP Jindal Global University has built a profile as a multidisciplinary institution with international collaborations and a student body drawn from across the country and abroad. Its leadership has often highlighted governance standards and academic autonomy as central pillars of its model. The current case tests those commitments, particularly in the handling of sensitive allegations that intersect with questions of power, identity and institutional responsibility.
Members of the legal fraternity observe that the Haryana Human Rights Commission’s involvement elevates the matter beyond a purely internal disciplinary issue. Should the commission find procedural shortcomings or evidence of rights violations, it can recommend corrective measures, seek compensation for affected parties or advise the state government on further action. While its orders are not binding in the manner of a court judgment, non-compliance can attract public censure and additional scrutiny.