CPI(M) probe report kicks up a row

Contents in the report seen as an attempt to save P.K. Sasi

An internal inquiry report submitted by two CPI(M) central committee members who probed a sexual harassment complaint against P.K. Sasi, MLA, has triggered a row.

A two-member panel comprising central committee members A.K. Balan and P.K. Sreemathy had probed the complaint of a woman DYFI Palakkad district committee member against Mr. Sasi on August 8. The woman leader accused Mr. Sasi, who is also a member of the CPI(M) Palakkad district secratariat, of misbehaving with her during the course of the party district conference.

Though Mr. Sasi was suspended from the primary membership of the party on the basis of the probe report, its leak to the media has come as a major embarrassment to the State leadership.

The report detailing the procedures initiated by the two-member commission said that it had garnered evidence from 22 witnesses and examined 14 documents. But the contents of the report kicked up a row as it was seen as an attempt to save Mr. Sasi.

After conducting extensive session, recording the statements of witnesses and examining four audio clips of Mr. Sasi’s purported telephonic conversation with the complainant, the commission concluded that but for certain utterances over the phone, he did not seem to have committed any lapse.

The commission had also found the explanation furnished by Mr. Sasi on the complaint was satisfactory. It concluded that Mr. Sasi had only engaged in a conversation with the woman leader in a manner unbecoming of a party leader and no sexual harassment had occurred. The report also suspected a conspiracy behind the complaint.

A note filed along with the report said the complainant, who was in charge of organising women volunteers in connection with the district conference, alleged that Mr. Sasi had summoned her to the party office five or six days before the district conference and convened a meeting to identify volunteers.

The complainant also said that Mr. Sasi had forcefully given her ₹5,000. She also said the accused had called her to his room talked and conducted in an unbecoming manner. Though such behaviour was not repeated, she alleged that he talked to her over the telephone in an objectionable manner. Now the report itself has landed in the thick of a row.