Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 487
Karnataka High Court
Ashish Suman - Appellant
Versus
National Law School of India University - Respondent
Decided On : 08-08-02
W.P. : 20778 of 2002
A.G.HOLLA, K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, KIRAN SHETTY, UDAYA HOLLA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious exercise of powers by authorities responsible for maintaining discipline in educational institutions, emphasizing the requirement for fair-play and the response of the judicial conscience to the actions of academic bodies.
Headnote:
Discipline - National Law School of India University - Section 32 of the National Law School of India Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: Section 32 of the National Law School of India Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 32 of the National Law School of India Act, which provides for discipline and the punishment of debarring a student from the examination or rustication from the school or a hostel or an institution. The court highlighted that the order of suspension passed in the case was without jurisdiction and void ab-initio, as it amounted to a punishment that only the Executive Council was authorized to impose after giving the student a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against them. The court also emphasized the autonomy of the institution and the need for judicious exercise of powers by the authorities responsible for maintaining discipline.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, final year students of B. A., LL. B. (Hons.) Degree course in the National Law School of India University, were suspended and faced disciplinary action following an incident involving a non-student who had consumed alcohol and harassed female students at a get-together organized by the university's final year students. The respondents initiated an enquiry and withheld the petitioners' results, preventing them from attending the convocation ceremony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of suspension was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against the petitioners and was without jurisdiction, as it amounted to a punishment that only the Executive Council was authorized to impose after giving the students a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against them. The court also emphasized the need for fair-play and the response of the judicial conscience to the actions of academic bodies, stating that academic excellence and international repute cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate injustice on students.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the order of suspension, the withholding of the petitioners' results, and their entitlement to attend the convocation ceremony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of suspension was without jurisdiction and void ab-initio, as it amounted to a punishment that only the Executive Council was authorized to impose after giving the students a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against them. The court also emphasized the need for fair-play and the response of the judicial conscience to the actions of academic bodies, stating that academic excellence and international repute cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate injustice on students.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to announce the results of the petitioners and permit them to participate in the convocation, subject to the result of the writ petitions and the pending enquiry.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS are the final year students of B. A. , LL. B. (Hons.) Degree course in the National Law School of India University. They have completed all the previous trimesters of their course successfully. Their case is that on 31-12-2001, a get together was organised by the final year students of the respondent-University for celebrating the new Years Eve. One Mr. Siddarth Rao, a student of third year in the respondent-University had invited one Mr. Praneet Reddy who is not a student of the respondent-University but is a room-mate and friend. The said Praneet Reddy and Mr. Siddarth Rao have rented a house in Nagarbhavi, bangalore and are living together, outside the respondent-University campus. Their further case is that Mr. Praneet Reddy had consumed alcohol when he came to the said get together and harassed some of the girl students of the respondent-University. He behaved indecently with some of the female students at get together. It is alleged that at one point of time he even molested one of the girls, who is a relative of the first petitioner. However, judging the mood of the students and girls involved, he ran away from get together. It is stated that, on 25-4-2002, the petitioners went to Praneet Reddys residence and enquired about the aforesaid incident from him. However, instead of being apologetic, Mr, Praneet Reddy started losing his temper and started abusing the petitioners in a most filthy and unparliamentary language. Thereafter, they have told him that if he did not apologize to the concerned girls and in particular the first petitioners relative, then they would be constrained to lodge a police complaint against. him. They further informed him that a copy of the said complaint would also be sent to his company where he works.
( 2 ) ONE Mr. Madan Mohan Rao sent a fax message to respondent No. 1 stating that the petitioners and one Amanpreet Singh went to the room of Mr. Praneet Reddy with whom his son is staying and a cook by name venkat was locked up and Praneet was severely beaten in the presence of Siddarth, and a strong smell of alcohol was also reported. Respondent No. 3, on the basis of the above fax sent by Madan Mohan Rao and on the basis of the statement obtained by his son Siddarth Rao without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to explain, illegality and arbitrarily suspended the petitioners debarring them from attending the classes, enter the University and stay in the hostel, with immediate effect till further orders. The said memo dated 27-4-2002 was served on them. They were also informed that an enquiry had to be conducted against them, for disciplinary action as the same involved the prestige and honour of the University. The said issue is purportedly referred to the Disciplinary Matters Advisory review and Investigation Committee of the university. Thereafter the Disciplinary Committee has issued a charge-sheet dated 29-4-2002 which was served on them on 30-4-2002. Petitioners were charged with various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have submitted their reply to the said charges. The petitioners requested the authorities to permit them to attend the classes, write examination and to submit the seminar projects and participate in the recruitment courses pending enquiry. The petitioner course was ending on 1-6-2002. They approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents on several grounds and sought for quashing of the memo dated 29-4-2002 and the charge-sheet dated 29-4-2002 and to issue a direction declaring that the suspension of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and for quashing of the entire enquiry proceedings and for such other relief to which they are entitled to.
( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have filed their detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the writ petitions and they have set out in detail their version of the incident and the responsibility of the authorities to maintain discipline in the
