Back
Caste Discrimination Allegations at NLU Prayagraj: Allahabad HC Orders Independent Probe and
The has stepped in to address serious allegations of at . Justice Vinod Diwakar, presiding over a , ordered an and a separate of answer sheets after a fifth-semester student complained that the Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys' Hostel had used his academic authority to humiliate and retaliate against him on caste grounds.
A Student's Cry for Justice
The case was brought by two petitioners: a Ph.D. research scholar and a student in the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programme, the latter residing in the university's boys' hostel. Their grievance targeted respondent no. 6, who serves as both Head of the Law Department and Warden of the Boys' Hostel. The student-petitioner alleged that the faculty member had turned academic evaluation into a tool for caste-based retaliation.
In a detailed complaint dated
, submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, the student recounted a troubling remark made at the beginning of the fourth semester. The respondent allegedly said:
"jo constitutional law me highest lekar aya hai, ab mere me lekar aaye"
(
"The one who got the highest marks in Constitutional Law, let him get the highest marks in my subject now"
). The student, who had topped Constitutional Law-I, understood this as an indirect reference to his performance and claimed that his answer sheets in Constitutional Law-II were thereafter subjected to stricter evaluation because of his caste.
The Alleged Remarks
The complaint further alleged that the same faculty member had publicly made insulting remarks about caste and reservation, including:
"Tum to achchi family se ho, tumhe reservation kyo chahiye?"
(
"You come from a good family; why do you need reservation?"
). The student also pointed to comments concerning a faculty member appointed under the reserved category. Despite sending repeated reminders and further complaints to the university authorities, no action was taken, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
Court's Swift Intervention
Recognizing the gravity of the allegations, Justice Diwakar emphasized that they
"require to be examined by an impartial agency after affording a full opportunity of hearing."
The Court clarified that it was not recording any finding on the truth of the allegations, but the seriousness demanded immediate institutional action.
The High Court directed the constitution of two separate committees: one for the independent of the student's answer sheets, and another for a thorough inquiry into the caste discrimination claims.
Two Committees, One Goal
Committee: The Vice-Chancellor must form an independent committee to re-evaluate the answer sheets of petitioner no. 2 in subjects taught and evaluated by respondent no. 6. The committee members cannot include the original evaluator, and respondent no. 6 is barred from any role in its constitution or functioning. The answer sheets will be presented after masking the identities of both the candidate and the original evaluator, and the committee will not be told the marks originally awarded. This exercise must be completed within one week.
Inquiry Committee: For a deeper probe into the allegations—including those in Annexures 2, 3, and 4 of the petition—the Court requested two judicial officers: Smt. Archana Singh-I, Judge, , and Shri Arun Kumar Yadava, Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, both from the . Their mandate is to ascertain whether SC/ST students have been subjected to caste-based humiliation or discrimination by respondent no. 6 or any other university employee, and whether the university dealt with complaints in accordance with applicable regulations.
Ensuring Fairness and
The inquiring officers have been empowered to record statements from the petitioners, respondent no. 6, and any other relevant persons, and to call for university records. Before recording any , they must put the substance of allegations to the concerned person and provide a reasonable . To protect students from potential retaliation, the officers are directed to take appropriate measures to keep identities confidential.
The Court also ordered that the petitioners shall not suffer any adverse academic or administrative consequences for filing the petition. Until further orders, respondent no. 6 is barred from evaluating petitioner no. 2's answer scripts or handling any disciplinary or hostel-related matters concerning either petitioner. More significantly, the respondent
"shall be relieved henceforth from all administrative responsibilities till the completion of the enquiries."
Scrutiny on University Mechanisms
The Vice-Chancellor has been directed to file a short disclosing whether the university has constituted an and a committee for redressing SC/ST student grievances as per Regulations, along with details of their composition and the action taken on the student's complaint. The Registrar must also file a personal .
The matter is set for further hearing on , at 12:00 p.m. Until then, the proceedings and identities of persons deposing before the inquiry are to be kept , ensuring that the academic environment remains undisturbed.
