Delhi HC Quashes SAU Expulsion, Citing Natural Justice Violation & Rejecting Immunity Plea - 2024-01-18

Delhi HC Quashes South Asian University Expulsion Over Procedural Unfairness, Upholds Natural Justice

New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has set aside the expulsion of a student by the South Asian University (SAU), ruling that the disciplinary process violated the fundamental principles of natural justice. Justice C. Hari Shankar , in a judgment pronounced on January 18, 2024, held that the procedure adopted by the university's High Powered Committee (HPC) was a "sham" and demonstrated a "prima facie pre-determined intent" to expel the student.

The court also rejected the university's arguments that it was immune from the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, affirming that imparting education is a public function amenable to judicial review.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Apoorva Y K, an LLM student at SAU, was issued a Show Cause Notice on November 26, 2022, containing serious allegations of misconduct. These included entering offices without permission, using threatening and abusive language, disrupting a class, attempting to coerce officials, and holding the Acting Registrar "captive" for several hours. The allegations stemmed from student protests concerning the university's handling of a medical emergency involving another student, Ammar Ahmed , who had suffered seizures and a cardiac arrest after hospitalization, and was subsequently rusticated.

The petitioner denied all allegations in her response, explaining the context of student distress over Ammar 's health and the university's perceived inaction. She requested adherence to natural justice and due process, including access to evidence and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, should proceedings continue.

Flawed Disciplinary Process

Instead of the Proctorial Committee mandated by the university's Bye Laws, a High Powered Committee (HPC) was constituted. The court noted the university's admission in its counter-affidavit (para 28) regarding the HPC's procedure: * The petitioner was heard on January 13, 2023. * Crucially, the complainants (University officials) were heard separately, behind the petitioner's back, on January 27, 2023. * Witness statements supporting the complaints were recorded also behind the petitioner's back on January 29, 2023. * The HPC then found the "evidence was conclusive" against the petitioner based on this segregated process.

The court found this procedure "completely unknown to law" and a violation of "most elementary principles of natural justice and fair play." The evidence relied upon was never shared with the petitioner, nor was she given an opportunity to confront or challenge it.

University's Immunity and Maintainability Arguments Rejected

The South Asian University, an intergovernmental body established by a SAARC agreement and an Act of the Indian Parliament (SAU Act, 2008), argued that it was not 'State' under Article 12 and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It also claimed immunity under the SAU Act and the UN (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947, citing MEA notifications.

The High Court, relying on precedents such as Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajiee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust , Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. S.R.M. University , and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage , reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private body performing a 'public function'. The court unequivocally held that "Imparting of education is, ex facie, a public function." As the expulsion affected the student's education, challenging it sought enforcement of this public function.

Regarding immunity, the court noted that Section 4 of the SAU Act explicitly states the university is a body corporate capable of "sue and be sued." Section 29 grants immunity only for acts done in "good faith" or "in pursuance of" the Act. The court found the expulsion process lacked "good faith" due to the clear procedural violations. Furthermore, the specific immunities granted under the UN Act and MEA notifications pertained to the university's premises, assets, or officials acting in their official capacity, not to shield administrative decisions violating its own rules and natural justice principles in student disciplinary matters.

The court also dismissed the university's contention that the availability of arbitration under Section 27 of the SAU Act barred the writ petition, reaffirming that arbitration is not a remedy that automatically disentitles a petitioner from invoking Article 226, especially when natural justice is violated.

Conclusion

Finding the disciplinary process fundamentally flawed and in violation of natural justice, the High Court quashed the expulsion orders dated February 17, 2023, and March 2, 2023. The court underscored that the manner in which the university proceeded against the petitioner could not be regarded as partaking of "good faith" as understood in law.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that even international or non-'State' educational institutions performing public functions remain subject to judicial review under Article 226, and must adhere to principles of fairness and natural justice in their disciplinary actions.