“Judgments like these deter women from making timely complaints of sexual assault”

Tarun Tejpal | Anindito Mukherjee, REUTERS

We, the undersigned Women’s groups and individuals, find the recent judgement acquitting Tarun Tejpal by a trial court in Goa shocking and deeply disturbing and feel that it will prove to be a hindrance to women filing and fighting rape cases. The judgement showcases the kind of gruelling trial that a survivor of sexual assault has to face in an insensitive court atmosphere and the relentless, cruel and often scandalous, illegal and irrelevant cross examination that a prosecutrix also faces.

The case, as is widely known, concerns a junior employee of Tehelka who accused the then Editor in Chief, Tarun Tejpal, of sexual assault and molestation on two occasions on the 7thand the 8th of November, 2013 during a work assignment, at the literary ‘Think’ festival in Goa. The allegations fall categorically within the definition of rape as per the extant law and demonstrate the exploitation of a relationship of trust, as also the misuse of power by the accused, who was the employer of the prosecutrix. 

Accordingly, an FIR for rape by a person in position in trust or authority, and by a person who was in a position of control and dominance vis-a-vis the survivor apart from other sections of the IPC including molestation was registered by the police in Goa.

The judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa is legally unsound and replete with biases and conceptions of victimhood and womanhood that are not just outdated, but wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of sexual offences as per settled law. In the judgment, it appears as though the prosecutrix herself has been put on trial, as opposed to the accused. 

One of the first biases that the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa displayed was by noting that the prosecutrix had contacted various lawyers and others including Senior Advocates of repute, as well as an officer with the National Commission for Women, after the incident. The ASJ concluded that “there may be a possibility of doctoring of evidence or adding of incidents and …the deposition of the prosecutrix has to be scrutinized in that angle”. Under law, the victim of any crime has an independent and inalienable right to consult counsel, and would further naturally turn to lawyers known to them for assistance. In this circumstance, a negative inference by the judge as relates to this is completely unwarranted. It cannot be imputed that merely by seeking legal advice or talking to people including those from NGOs or the NCW, there is a risk that evidence could be manipulated: both from the perspective of the prosecutrix as also the experts consulted, who have often set the standard for professional ethics themselves.

It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution seized the mobile phone of the prosecutrix and all her private conversations, even ones irrelevant to the incident came to light during the trial, putting the prosecutrix in the dock instead of the accused and permitting a roving inquiry into every aspect of her private life and communications. In stark contradiction to this, no such wide evidence of the accused and his interactions were placed on record at all. Regrettably, it is through an order of the Supreme Court that a complete clone of the prosecutrix’ phone was provided to the accused, allowing a complete breach of privacy and exploitation of her personal life during cross-examination.

Despite legislative change, progressive judgments from the Courts, and strides in so far as women’s rights is concerned, the Tejpal judgment reveals a continuing and pervasive obsession with scrutinizing a rape victim’s behaviour to analyse whether it is “normative”. Unfortunately, a conception of what is normative is defined by the author of the judgment and is necessarily based in gender stereotypes and social conditioning. The law must rise above such value judgments and adjudications must be based on an unbiased appreciation of evidence, which the Tejpal judgment appears to lack. Indeed, even the prosecutrix’ intelligence, capability and fortitude have been held against her and her casual manner of speaking with friends, irrelevant to the incident at hand, has been adverted to. 

The prosecutrix had immediately following the incident informed her close friends of the incident and continued with her work assignment for a few days, statedly unsure of the appropriate steps to be taken. In that time, the prosecutrix had written to the CEO of Tehelka detailing the incident. She also had received both an informal and formal apology in writing from the accused. The personal apology stated: “I am sorry at the immense distress that has been caused to you by my lapse of judgement but I want you to know its been totally devastating for me too in every possible way… this is for me to figure out how it went so terribly misunderstood and wrong” and also stated that his daughter had spoken with him, and said that he was not aware that it had been non-consensual till then. In the formal apology too he admitted “to attempt” her on “two occasions” and to violating “propriety”.

At the very least, these ‘apologies’ acknowledge the incident and concomitant distress caused to the prosecutrix, and corroborate her claim of speaking with the daughter of the accused. We feel it is appalling that this evidence was brushed aside on the weak assertion that it is irrelevant considering Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act [IEA], since the accused was apparently asked by the Tehelka CEO and by his own sister to tender it. Respectfully, this does not in any way constitute an induced confession under Section 24 IEA, given that the section requires that the inducement or threat emanate from “a person in authority”. 

Pertinently, whereas prosecution witnesses were held unreliable due to their proximity with the prosecutrix, the Court found the testimony of the co-worker and sister of the accused reliable in this regard. Conversely, the prosecutrix’ mother was not believed as she was said to be an interested witness and the prosecutrix didn’t tell her about the incident for two days. Even her mother’s conduct in not taking leave from work to support the prosecutrix has been held against the prosecutrix, as though this evidences the lack of any trauma.

Another message sent by the accused, seemingly referring to digital rape, was also disregarded by the ASJ. In our opinion, this displays an unreasonable latitude to any acts by the accused, whilst placing every interaction and act of the prosecutrix (including smiling in photos taken at the festival) under scrutiny. It would seem that, being visibly traumatized would be the only acceptable and normative behaviour for a rape survivor and the Ld. ASJ held that the prosecutrix failed to demonstrate “any kind of normative behaviour…that as a prosecutrix of sexual assault might show.”

The Appellate Court will of course take a view on the basis of the evidence before it on the differential assessment of prosecution and defence evidence, as also on whether the inconsistencies/contradictions and so-called improvements by prosecution witnesses shake their credit. In our opinion, the inconsistencies which were evident in the judgement are natural given the traumatic nature of the incident and the protracted trial of seven years. The Appellate Court will also have to examine which if any contradictions rise to being material to the facts of the case. This assessment cannot be unmindful of the nature of cross-examination the prosecutrix was subjected to and also to the regressive notions reflected in the judgment as regards her behaviour. Much of the questioning as evident from the judgment, for example, questions on why prosecutrix had not averted her face, or put her hand in front of her mouth while the accused was kissing her, seeks to disprove the crime by unreasonably assessing the victim’s reactions. It is a pity that we still have to state that women react in different ways to assault and violence, that there is no mould within which a victim’s reaction prior, during and following an incident can be made to fit. It is further understandable that minute details, such as which specific buttons of a lift may be pressed by the accused, may not be noted by the prosecutrix, particularly during a short, traumatic incident. Yet, prosecutrix appears to have been repeatedly asked which button/s of the lift the accused had pressed, and her answers held against her. The Court made no concessions for shock and trauma of the prosecutrix, nor did the court give adequate weight to the testimony of the prosecutrix as per settled law. The Court held that the ‘victim’s’ testimony is not of sterling quality though the prosecutrix had nothing to gain from this nor was any motive ascribed to her for her so called lack of credibility.

The Supreme Court and High Courts across the country have repeatedly held that minor discrepancies and variations in testimony given by witnesses, so long as they do not shake the core of the prosecution case, are bound to occur and the testimony cannot be discarded on this basis. The Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh’s case had directed courts to not look at a rape victim’s testimony with “glasses tinged with disbelief” as she was an injured party, and generally the testimony of an injured party is of high evidentiary value. Yet, the antagonistic attitude of the Sessions Court in Goa was on display throughout the judgement, and the prosecutrix and her witnesses wrongly held to be unreliable. The Court excluded evidence on record pointing to the guilt of the accused and instead believed the version of the accused that he and the prosecutrix had only indulged in drunken ‘banter’. 

The Sessions Court judgement in the case against Tarun Tejpal harks back to a method of dealing with rape cases that has been held incorrect as per law in India, and in many other countries. Supreme Court judgments which say that the cross-examination should not be a means to harassment and causing humiliation to the prosecutrix have not been adhered to. The judgment of the Ld. ASJ is further reminiscent of earlier judgments like in Mathura’s case, in which signs of hurt and injury were considered crucial to prove rape. We are of the view that the Court has wrongly gone into the victim’s character and past sexual history, faulted her for her reactions and interactions around the incident, even faulted her for not going in for a medical examination though the reason given by the prosecutrix for this is correct and plausible. The judgement contains several details of her private or presumed private life, and the defence has been permitted to lead irrelevant but scandalous evidence in this regard.

The judgement also lays bare all the personal details of the Survivor including her name, her partner’s name, email address etc., even though this is against the express provision of the law. The High Court in appeal has already asked the trial court to remove all these references.

It is judgments like these that continue to deter women from making timely complaints of sexual assault and rape and increase barriers to accessing justice. As such, the very reasoning of the Ld. ASJ is contrary to public interest and a set-back to hard-won women’s rights. Evidence regarding the character of a rape survivor or of her previous sexual history, “immoral character” has specifically been excluded in 2013, when consent is in issue and [Section 146(3) IEA]. Even otherwise, provisions of law as well as judgements of the Supreme Court do not allow humiliating questions to be put to a rape survivor, nor are scandalous questions in cross-examinations allowed. Conventional and patriarchal notions about what constitutes a chaste or good woman have also been frowned upon by the Supreme Court and primacy placed on the dignity, privacy and bodily integrity of a woman. The judgement of the Sessions Court, Mapusa, Goa, throws up issues not just of gender sensitization, but also of a failure to follow precedent and prevailing law in letter and spirit. 

  1. Malini Bhattacharya, President (AIDWA)
  2. Mariam Dhawale, General Secretary (AIDWA)
  3. Dr. Mohini Giri (Guild of Service)
  4. Dr. Jyotsna Chatterjee (JWP)
  5. Kavita Krishnan (AIPWA)
  6. Chhabi Mohanty (AIMSS)
  7. Ranjana Padhi, Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS)
  8. Sandhya Gokhale, Forum Against Oppression of Women
  9. Shabnam Hashmi, Anhad
  10. Yasmeen Aga, Aawaaz-E-Niswaan
  11. Vineeta Bal, Nari Samata Manch
  12. Leila Passah, Independent Consultant – Gender & Advocacy
  13. Dr Utsa Patnaik, Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  14. Subhashini Ali, Ex Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)
  15. Sujata Gothoskar, Nari Atyachar Virodhi Manch
  16. Mukta, Stree Mukti Sanghatana
  17. Kavita Srivastava, PUCL
  18. Irfan Engineer, CSSS
  19. Prabhat Patnaik, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  20. Dr Archana Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  21. P. K. Sreemathi teacher , Ex Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)
  22. Arundhati Dhuru, NAPM
  23. Shahira Naim, Humsafar Lucknow
  24. Geeta Seshu, Journalist, Mumbai
  25. Vimala K S, Karnataka
  26. Dr Chirashree Das Gupta, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  27. Shiraz Bulsara Prabhu , Kashtakari Sanghatna, PUCL
  28. Sharmila Ramteke, Karve Institute of Social Service
  29. Qutub Kidwai, URI West India 
  30. Wandana Sonalkar, Retired Professor, TISS, Mumbai
  31. Suchetana Chattopadhyay, Jadavpur University
  32. Archana Kaul, Srijanatmak Manushi Sanstha
  33. Bimla Chandrasekhar, Ekta
  34. Deepika Tandon, Miranda House
  35. Ishita Mukherjee, Kolkatta
  36. Sudhanva Deshpande, LeftWord Books
  37. Indira Chandrasekhar, Tulika Books
  38. Nupur Mittal, SPMC, Delhi University
  39. Komita Dhanda, Jana Natya Manch
  40. Sania Hashmi, Anhad Films
  41. Ambika Narain, Bank
  42. Ladkumari Jain, Rajasthan University Women’s Association
  43. Subhankar Chakraborty, Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti (BGVS) Karnataka
  44. Srabani, Delhi
  45. Meena Gopal, FAOW
  46. Kumkum Roy, JNU
  47. Saswati Sengupta, Miranda House
  48. Malini Subramaniam, Independent journalist
  49. Sandhya Shaily, Madhya Pradesh 
  50. Ammu Abraham, Forum against oppression of women 
  51. Shruti Sharma, None
  52. Manisha Gupte, Gender equality activist
  53. Sangeeta Chatterji , Independent 
  54. Anahita Sarabhai, N/A
  55. Seema Azad, Dastak magazine, PUCL
  56. Shivani Taneja, Madhya Pradesh Mahila Manch
  57. Twinkle Siwach, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
  58. Rajkumar Shriwastav, SK Vestigium LLP
  59. Noopur Singhal, Independent Lawyer
  60. Ananya, Researcher
  61. Tultul Biswas, M P MahilaManch
  62. Meghana Marathe, Self employed
  63. Prachi Hatiwlekar, Maharashtra 
  64. Jayanthi Talluri, Independent Legal Consultant
  65. Subhir Mavunkal, Mumbai Rationalists Association 
  66. Zainaba. P. K, Kerala
  67. Lata Singh, JNU
  68. Vasuki Umanath, Tamil Nadu
  69. Jigyasa Jain, Life Healer Healing clinic
  70. Rohit Prasad, MDI Gurgaon
  71. Usha, POSH practitioner 
  72. Gunjan Singhal, Wise Finserv P L
  73. K P Sumathi , Kerala 
  74. Shivakami Ravichandran, Independent Advocate 
  75. Veena Linda , Jharkhand
  76. Rashmi Karle, Women’s organisation
  77. Manjeet Rathee, Haryana
  78. Sneha Khandekar, Independent
  79. Devika Singh, Cohere Consultants
  80. Renuka Mukadam, Independent 
  81. Seema, Madhya Pradesh Mahila Manch
  82. Rivya Singh, Lawyer
  83. TN Seema, Ex Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)
  84. Priyanka, Jana Natya Manch
  85. Radhika Chatterjee , JNU
  86. Tapasi Praharaj , Odisha
  87. Rajesh Singhal, social services
  88. Amritha Sruthi, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  89. Damini Parashar, Artist 
  90. Reena Tanwar, Himachal Pradesh
  91. Smita Tandon , Freelancer
  92. Vandana DV, POSH Indpendent Consultant 
  93. Meena Lokhande, Child Help Foundation
  94. Antara , N/A
  95. Viji Hari, www.cecureus.com 
  96. Hanish Bhatia, Avaaz
  97. Dr Sandya Advani, POSH Systems.com
  98. Ddharaniikota Ssuyodhan , Lawyer 
  99. Rekha Prakash, Trainer, POSH
  100. Nathaniel da Costa
  101. Revati Ahuja, Self 
  102. Sana, NA
  103. Mini Mathew , Lawyer
  104. Prasanna Invally, Self
  105. Pournima, Disha Institute
  106. Gaurav Singhal, Thieme Publishers
  107. Yamuna@sashaindia.com, Sasha
  108. Adv. Ambily Martin, Consultant 
  109. Anushree, Freelance.
  110. Ruati Samuel , Nil
  111. Sangeeta Gandhe, None
  112. Adv Sphurti Kothare , 
  113. Sudha Sundararaman, Tamil Nadu
  114. Debasish Chatterji , Retired journalist 
  115. Indrani Chakravarty, NA
  116. Sarbani Sarkar, Delhi
  117. Aparna Mahiyaria, Independent Researcher 
  118. Piya Chakravarty, NA
  119. Anagha Sarpotdar, Independent 
  120. Punyavathi Sunkara, Telangana
  121. Kumkum Roy, JNU
  122. Vikas Rawal, Jawaharlal Nehru University
  123. Mahima Kapoor, none 
  124. Sarika Sinha, Independent 
  125. Rachna Sinha Roy, Counsel Quest
  126. Sunita Pande , Uttarakhand 
  127. Rajkumar, CKR Law Associates
  128. Sandhya Phadke, Individual
  129. Madhubal, Insurance
  130. Shobana S, LIC OF INDIA 
  131. Banumathi K, Public sector (Lic)
  132. K.Thulasitharan, Insurance Corp. Employees Union, Coimbatore Division 
  133. R Amutha, Life Insurance Corporation of India
  134. Senthil Kumar T, AIIEA
  135. M Annadurai, Public Sector Enterprises (General Insurance)
  136. T. Vanjunathan , All India Insurance Employees Association
  137. Satheedevi. P,  Ex Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)
  138. Sibani Pal, Jharkhand.
  139. Indira A, LIC
  140. Devi J, LIC OF INDIA
  141. J Vijaya, AIIEA
  142. Anandaselvi, LIC
  143. S.Kamali, LIC
  144. Ramesh Kumar , AIIEA 
  145. R. Elangovan, liccoonoor
  146. Thiru, Arcmed
  148. Vini, Liceu
  149. T. Vandhana, Teacher
  150. Srividhya Sankar Ramakrishnan, Teacher
  151. Umarani, LIC
  152. Dhanaselvam , Insurance 
  153. Sathianathan, Public sector general insurance
  154. L Muruganantham, SZIEA 
  155. Dhineshraj, LIC OF INDIA
  156. K. Usharani, LIC
  157. Muthuramalingam, LIC
  158. Falma Chauhan, Himachal Pradesh
  159. Karuthapandi, AIIEA 
  160. Meenakshi Sundaram, Insurance Corporation employees union 
  161. Juhi Saklani, Writer
  162. D. Chitra, LIC union AIIEA
  163. Shivani, Deeprekha Organization 
  164. K. Pennadevi , Lic
  165. V Logambal, LIC OF INDIA
  166. Sivaramakrishnan, Financial sector 
  167. Kalaiselvi, AIIEA
  168. Nandhakumar Kuppraj, LIC OF INDIA
  169. Dharmalingam, AIIEA
  170. Aasha Ramesh, Women’s Rights Activist Researcher
  171. Tamilselvi , PSU
  172. Suresh V, Social activist
  173. Jones L, LIC
  174. A Lawrence, LIC of India
  175. R. Sarvamangala, LIC
  176. Rajendiran R, LICPA
  177. M. Gajendran. , AIIEA
  178. Muthukumar, AIIEA
  179. Ramesh Pandian R, Public sector
  180. V.Nandagopal, LIC OF INDIA 
  181. Bhuvanya Rev, LIC
  182. T. Vijoy Joseph , LIC OF INDIA
  183. R Kiran kumar , LIC of India
  184. M. Devi, LIC of india
  185. Ravikimar, LIC
  186. C.Selvarani, LIC
  187. Selvaraj S, AIIEA
  188. M. Shanthi, Teacher
  189. Srikanthan V, LIC of India (Retired)
  190. Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre
  191. A.E.Muthukumar, AIIEA
  192. Anbumani, BSNL
  193. S Uma, LIC of India
  194. Murali , AIIEA
  195. S. Rajkumar, LIC of India
  196. K Lakshmanan, LIC pensioner
  197. D. Leelavathi , LIC
  198. Ravichandran, LIC
  199. Sujatha Krishnan, Central Government
  200. V. B. Ganesan, Retired
  201. R Venugopal, Insurance
  202. Leelavathi , AIIEA
  203. M Nagaraj, LIC OF INDIA
  204. Palaniraj, AIIEA
  205. V. Anuja, LIC
  206. Sehba Farooqui, All India Democratic Women’s Association
  207. Venkatesh , LIC of India 
  208. A.Mathivanan, LIC of India
  209. G Sudha, All India Insurance Employees Organisationn
  210. R Padmapriya , LIC of India
  211. Ganesan C, AIIEA
  212. Sonya Gill , Maharashtra
  213. G Chandrasekar, LIC of India
  214. J Sivakumar, AIIEA
  215. I support, I support
  216. Karuppiah, Insurance
  217. S. Kabeer, AIIEA
  218. Mohitha K , AIIEA
  219. Arokiaraj N, LIC OF INDIA
  220. Geetha Vinodh, LIC OF INDIA
  221. Viji, LIC
  222. J. Anbarasi, LIC
  223. Pamela Philipose, Independent journalists
  224. Swaminathan Raman, AIIEA 
  225. Jagmati Sangwan, Haryana
  226. Suchetana Chattopadhyay, Jadavpur University
  227. K.Parvathi, LIC of Imdia
  228. Nirmala, LIC
  229. Lalitha Sridharan, LIC of India
  231. JOSHUA PAUL J, LIC of India
  232. Balasubramanian S, insurance employees 
  233. Vasudevan GK, Insurance
  234. Rajeshwari , LIC
  235. GANESAN S, LIC of India
  236. T.senthilvel , LIC OF INDIA
  237. R. Lakshmi, LIC OF INDIA
  238. Murugan, Psu 
  239. Resmi Unnikrishnan , LIC OF INDIA
  240. M Girija, AIDWA
  241. M. Geetha, Life Insurance Corporation of India
  242. Mini John, LIC of India
  243. K. Jeyanthi, LIC of India
  244. Srividyalakshmi, LIC of India
  245. Ajay Trivedi, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly U.P.
  246. Parthipan, INSURANCE
  247. Baskar B S, AIIEA
  248. A. K. Balameenakshi, LIC OF INDIA
  249. Ramesh, LIC OF INDIA
  250. Aishwarya Sethuraman , Law School 
  251. A.R.Nagarajan, LIC OF INDIA
  252. Susila, LIC OF INDIA
  253. Ganesh, LIC of India
  254. A. R. Nagarajan, LIC OF INDIA
  255. Rajeev Radhakrishnan, AIIEA
  256. V. Rajarathinam, LIC
  257. A. N. Ompriya, Home Maker
  258. K. Vadivel, LIC
  259. A. P. LALITHA , LIC
  260. Anuradha M.C., Life Insurance Corporation of India
  261. P Mahalingam, AIIEA
  262. M K Viswa, LIC
  263. Jalaja MU, AIIEA, LIC, D O, Base Unit woman sub-committee, Thrissur
  264. S Sobhana, Individual
  265. S. Venkatesh, AIEA
  266. H. Gopal, PUBLIC SECTOR
  267. Maimoona Mollah, JMS, Delhi
  268. Asha Sharma, JMS, Delhi
  269. Meera, LIC of India
  270. K Jeevarathinam, LIC OF INDIA
  271. Lakshmy Devi, LIC Of India
  272. Vimala S, LIC
  273. R. Lakshminathan, LIC OF INDIA
  274. R Manogar , Individual 
  275. Narayanee, LIC of India
  276. A. Sirajudin, Insurance
  277. Archana, LIC
  278. Prof. Mohan Rao, Former prof, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, JNU.
  279. Bhuvana, LIC
  280. K S Lakshmi,  Karnataka
  281. Gowramma, Karnataka
  282. A. Meera Meenakshi, LIC of India
  283. N. Sumathy, Life Insurance Corporation Of India
  284. A. Rajan, AIIEA, COIMBATORE
  285. B. Mabel Sylvia, LIC OF INDIA
  286. P. Anand, LIC OF INDIA
  287. P K Vanaja L, LIC OF INDIA
  288. Sunita Sheel, Health, Ethics and Law Institute of Forum for Medical Ethics Society
  289. Tana, HT
  290. Vijayakumar R, LIC of India
  291. S. Dharmendhra, LIC OF INDIA
  292. Sridhar , Public sector – LIC
  293. K. Malathi, LIC
  294. Pramitha P, LIC OF INDIA
  295. N, Life Insurance Corporation of India 
  296. A. Meera, Life Insurance corporation of india
  297. Priyadarshini Anand, LIC OF INDIA 
  298. S. V. Shankar, AIIEA
  299. Stalin Ashok, LIC of India
  300. Chandra, LIC
  301. A. Indira, AIEA
  302. VSS Rajan, All India Insurance Employees Association
  303. Muthumuruges Asokan, All india insurance pensioners association
  304. M.Sathiaseelan, Insurance
  305. P V Nandini, LIC OF INDIA
  306. B. Rathai, LIC of india
  307. Satarupa Chakraborty, Delhi
  308. A Hendrycharles, Life Insurance corporation of India
  309. Anuvratty Saxena
  310. Rima Zaheer , Self employed 
  311. Ramakrishnan R, Insurance
  312. Biju I K, All India Insurance Employees’ Association
  313. Govind Menon , LIC of India
  314. L. Kumar, Life insurance corporation
  315. Appunni Muttilpurayi, LICEU
  316. Rugmani M D, LIC of INDIA
  317. Sreeram M J, Individual
  318. P P Krishnan , AIIEA 
  319. Bindu, LIC
  320. Suresh p, LIC OF INDIA 
  321. Sasikumar V, AIIEA
  322. Sujatha, LIC of India
  323. S. Gunalan, Insurance corporation Employees Union, Vellore Division
  324. Shynu K P, AIIEA
  325. Rajeesh, LIC
  326. C C Vinod, LIC
  327. Rajeevan P K, Professional
  328. Sumesh Kollanandy, LIC
  329. Sreeram M J, AllEA
  330. Poornima A D, All India Insurance Employees Association
  331. S Balu, LIC
  332. Vidya M, LIC OF INDIA
  333. Bindu, LIC
  334. Sairekha Suresh, Cohere Consultants
  335. M C Sajay, AIIEA
  336. C. Balamurugesan, LIC OF INDIA