4. In your appearances on national news channels, you first attempted to establish that I was “satisfied” with Tehelka's actions, when only one of my immediate demands from the organization had been met—namely, that Mr Tejpal had unconditionally apologized for sexually molesting me in private emails to you and I.

His public acknowledgement of the apology did not include any reference to his grievous sexual misconduct, and you had still failed to set up an anti-sexual harassment cell as per Vishaka guidelines.

This could, in no way, have left me “satisfied”.

Further, I had responded to both of Mr Tejpal's emails (cc'd to you and the three colleagues I had confided everything to since the 7th of November) clarifying: that his behaviour could not be described as “sexual liaison”, and that was in fact an act of sexual molestation and a violation of bodily integrity and trust, since it occurred (by his own admission) despite my refusal.

A sexual act carried out without consent cannot be justified on any basis.

That after Mr Tejpal (by his own admission) had referred to his position of power over me in the organization, he did not withdraw this statement as his emails allege.

You continued to ignore my rebuttals to these emails, while insisting, in public, that I was satisfied.