Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Satyam Rai - Petitioner
Versus
Banaras Hindu University and 5 Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 25122 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
For the Petitioner: Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ajay Kumar Rai.
For the Respondent: Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, Rijwan Ali Akhtar.
Headnote:
The judgment deals with the issue of punishment imposed on delinquent students by universities and the need for a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program to address the root causes of deviant behavior and promote behavioral change. The Court emphasizes the importance of human dignity and the right to reform as fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student at Banaras Hindu University (BHU), was suspended from all privileges and activities of the university and hostel for an alleged involvement in a criminal case. The suspension order was passed under a provision that empowers the competent authority to suspend a student accused of moral turpitude or heinous crime. The petitioner challenged the suspension order and the consequential order denying admission to a Master's program.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned suspension order was passed in violation of the university's statutes and without considering the petitioner's susceptibility to reform. The Court held that the statutory regime of punishments in the university lacked a reformative approach and violated the fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned suspension order was passed in violation of the university's statutes and without considering the petitioner's susceptibility to reform? 2. Whether the statutory regime of punishments in the university violates the fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution? 3. Whether there is a need for a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program to address the root causes of deviant behavior and promote behavioral change in universities?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned suspension order was passed in violation of the university's statutes and without considering the petitioner's susceptibility to reform. The Court found that the provision under which the suspension order was passed was intended to deal with cases involving moral turpitude or heinous crimes, and the mere lodging of a criminal case against the petitioner did not automatically lead to a suspension. 2. The Court held that the statutory regime of punishments in the university violated the fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the punishments were punitive in nature and did not consider the possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the delinquent students. 3. The Court emphasized the need for a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program to address the root causes of deviant behavior and promote behavioral change in universities. The Court directed the respondents, including the university, University Grants Commission (UGC), and the Ministry of Human Resource Development, to create such a program after wide consultations with stakeholders.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned suspension order and the consequential order denying admission to the Master's program. The Court directed the respondents to create a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for delinquent students in the university within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT :
This judgment has been structured by dividing it into various sections to facilitate analysis and for easy read. They are:
| A. | Reliefs sought |
| B. | Arguments of learned counsels for the parties |
| C. | Facts (i). Background (ii). Suspension order : Consequences (iii). Suspension order : Validity |
| D. | Legal Issues common in all writ petitions |
| E. | Stands of various respondents on affidavits (i). Response of IIT BHU (ii). Response of AMU (iii). Response of BHU (iv). Response of UGC (v). Response of UoI |
| F. | Evolution of Fundamental Rights by courts (i) Legislative lag, executive inertia and fundamental rights |
| G. | Process of law and the courts : Current State & Contemporary challenges |
| H. | Education (i). Importance and scope (ii). Role and obligation of universities |
| I. | Discipline in Universities: Concept, Need & Challenges (i). Violence, intimidation and moral turpitude (ii). Communal disturbances in universities (iii). Discipline in universities (iv). Statutory approach to maintaining discipline |
| J. | Statutory Regime of Punishments in light of Article 21 & Doctrine of Proportionality |
| K. | Punishments & Article 21 (i). Right to human dignity (ii). Supreme Court on human dignity (iii). Comparative International Jurisprudence (iv). Constitutionality of punishments under the statutes (v). Systemic responses : Responsibilities of the State and the universities |
| L. | Reform, Self Development & Rehabilitation: (i). Role of universities in achieving behavioural change (ii). Imbibing constitutional values and purging communal hatred (iii). Present discontents of students and solutions (iv). Creation of reform, self development, rehabilitation programmes (v). Concerns of universities regarding discipline & restraints during the reformation, self development & rehabilitation programme |
| M. | Proportionality and Punishment |
| N. | Conclusions & Reliefs |
| O. | Appendix |
A. Reliefs sought
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4, Assistant Registrar (ACAD), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, suspending him from all privileges and activities of the University and hostel. The petitioner has further challenged the consequential order dated 03.07.2019, wherein the respondent University declined to consider the case for admission to any of the courses in the University to the academic sessions 2019-20.
2. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission in M.A. History for the academic session 2019-21.
B. Arguments of the learned counsel for parties
3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutes of the university. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate. There is no provision for reform and rehabilitation of delinquent students in the statutes, which has resulted in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Sri Anish Kumar, Sri Pankaj Misra and Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsels for the petitioner in connected writ petitions adopt the aforesaid arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, apart from raising factual issues peculiar to the respective writ petitions in which they appear.
5. Sri V.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the BHU submits that the BHU has taken action as per law.
6. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the affidavits filed by the B.H.U., on creation of a reform and rehabilitation programme for delinquent students.
7. Sri Ajit Kumar
