Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Piyush Yadav - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
Writ-C No. 22848 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
For the Petitioner: Gaurav Pundir
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, Om Prakash Yadav, Rijwan Ali Akhtar, Vikram D. Chauhan
The fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to reform and self-development for delinquent students, and the statutory omission of reform measures is an inadequacy that renders the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it.
Headnote:
The judgment deals with the issue of punishment for delinquent students in universities and the need for a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program. The Court held that the impugned action of the university in suspending the petitioner was violative of his fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it failed to consider his susceptibility to reform and did not enable him to undergo a reform and self-development process to redeem himself. The Court also held that the statutory omission of reform measures was an inadequacy that rendered the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it. The Court directed the university to create a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for delinquent students and to consider the petitioner's case for reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of IIT BHU, was suspended for his involvement in a physical assault and manhandling incident between two groups of students. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, arguing that it was violative of his fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned action of the university in suspending the petitioner was violative of his fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it failed to consider his susceptibility to reform and did not enable him to undergo a reform and self-development process to redeem himself. The Court also held that the statutory omission of reform measures was an inadequacy that rendered the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned action of the university in suspending the petitioner was violative of his fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the statutory omission of reform measures was an inadequacy that rendered the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned action of the university in suspending the petitioner was violative of his fundamental right to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it failed to consider his susceptibility to reform and did not enable him to undergo a reform and self-development process to redeem himself. The Court also held that the statutory omission of reform measures was an inadequacy that rendered the university incapable of rectifying the violation made by it.
Final Decision: The Court directed the university to create a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for delinquent students and to consider the petitioner's case for reinstatement.
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 |
2. The petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to decide the mercy appeal filed by him against the order dated 31.05.2019, passed by the Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, within a stipulated period of time.
3. The only prayer made by Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner may be permitted to continue his studies along with the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme. The petitioner undertakes to unconditionally join and diligently pursue the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme, as may be created by the University but he may be permitted to pursue his studies.
4. The relief was moulded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of the arguments. In the interest of justice and expeditious disposal and in the light of submissions of the parties, the formal amendment to the relief clause is dispensed with.
B. Arguments of the learned counsels for parties
5. 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.
6. 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.
