Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Mohammad Ghayas - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 26755 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
For the Petitioner: Arvind Kumar Upadhyay, Sanjay Pathak
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Abrar Ahmad, Rijwan Ali Akhtar, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Vinod Kumar Shukla
The statutory omission of reform measures, is an inadequacy which renders the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it. The systemic fault-line is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
The impugned action and the statutory regime, of imposing punishments, will also be judged in such constitutional and legal perspectives. The discussion on these issues, shall be common in all the companion writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was debarred from the University for six academic sessions 2016-17. The petitioner has passed his Diploma in Engineering (Mechanical Production) from the respondent University. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4, Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and the order dated 22/23.08.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, in the instant writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned action taken by the university, against the petitioner is violative of the fundamental right of human dignity of the petitioner, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it fails to consider his susceptibility to reform, and does not enable the petitioner to undergo a reform and self development process to redeem himself.
Issues: Whether the impugned action and the statutory regime, of imposing punishments, will also be judged in such constitutional and legal perspectives. Whether the discussion on these issues, shall be common in all the companion writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory omission of reform measures, is an inadequacy which renders the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it. The systemic fault-line is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the respondent no.4, Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondents. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respective respondents to execute the following directions in the light of this judgment: I. The University shall pass a fresh reasoned order on the application of the petitioner for being reinstated as a student in the University, in strict compliance of the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 15.02.2019, rendered in Writ C No. 5403 of 2019, Mohd. Ghayas Vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh Dwara Pramukh Sachiv Shiksha and Others. While passing the order, the University shall also bear in mind the observations made in this judgment. This is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to be enrolled and benefit from the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme to be created in pursuance of this judgment; II. The University shall create a reform, self development and rehabilitation programme, for students accused of misconduct and against whom disciplinary action or any action to deny facilities of the university is proposed or taken; III. The reform, self development and rehabilitation programme should be created after wide consultations and workshops with institutions of higher learning and research, universities, experts, student counsellors/psychologists, psychiatrists, students and other stakeholders; IV. University Grants Commission will aid the above process by providing the necessary support to the University to create, standardize and effectuate the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme in the university; V. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi (respondent no.5 herein), shall also provide the necessary support to create infrastructure in the University to effectuate the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme in the University, in light of this judgment and as per law; VI. The reform, self development and rehabilitation programmes shall be processed as per law, and integrated into the existing legal/statutory framework, of the University dealing with deviant conduct and punishments; VII. The petitioner shall be given the benefit of the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme. After the creation of the self development and rehabilitation programme, the petitioner shall be reinstated as a student, and permitted to continue his studies as per his eligibility, along with the said programme; VIII. Attendance of the petitioner in the said programme shall be compulsory. An evaluation sheet of the petitioner’s performance in the programme shall also be prepared; IX. It shall be open to the AMU to impose necessary restraints, as it deems fit, upon the petitioner even as he pursues his academic course along with the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme. These restraints may include a campus entry ban upon the petitioner, if the university deems it necessary; X. The exercise shall be completed, preferably, within six months, but not later than 12 months. At all times the respondents keeping in mind the best interests of the students and the society, shall make all efforts to expedite the compliance of the directions; XI. It shall be open to the respondents to create a scheme for reform, self development and rehabilitation for convicts in criminal cases who wish to pursue further higher studies in the respondent University; XII. The counsels for the respondents shall provide certified copy of this judgment to the Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (respondent no. 2 herein), the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Union of India, New Delhi (respondent no.5 herein) and the Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi (respondent no. 6 herein), for necessary compliances.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. 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 |
| 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
2. By order dated 22/23.08.2016, the petitioner was debarred from the University for six academic sessions 2016-17.
3. By order dated 23.03.2019, the representation of the petitioner for revocation of the debarment of the petitioner for admission in any course in the AMU for six academic sessions commencing from 2016-17 which he intends to pursue in University, was rejected.
4. The petitioner has passed his Diploma in Engineering (Mechanical Production) from the respondent University.
5. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4, Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and the order dated 22/23.08.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, in the instant writ petition.
6. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to permit him for further studies in the University.
B. Arguments of the learned counsel for parties
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Sri V. K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counse
