Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Ajay Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and 6 Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 32955 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
For the Petitioner: Pankaj Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Shashank Shekhar Singh.
Headnote:
The judgment deals with the issue of disciplinary action taken by universities against students for acts of misconduct. The Court held that the statutory regime of punishments in universities, which consists solely of penal provisions and excludes all other responses, often creates a lack of balance in the actions of the concerned University. The Court further held that the punitive provisions of the Statutes of the respective universities manifest the deterrent intent of the law, and a reformist approach to the problem is absent in the statutes. The Court also held that the absence of reformative provisions and the presence of a statutory bias in favor of a punitive approach, on the fundamental rights of the petitioners, shall also be assessed in the next part of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are students of various universities who have been suspended or expelled for acts of misconduct. They have challenged the disciplinary action taken against them on the ground that it violates their fundamental right to education and human dignity.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the statutory regime of punishments in universities, which consists solely of penal provisions and excludes all other responses, often creates a lack of balance in the actions of the concerned University. The Court further held that the punitive provisions of the Statutes of the respective universities manifest the deterrent intent of the law, and a reformist approach to the problem is absent in the statutes. The Court also held that the absence of reformative provisions and the presence of a statutory bias in favor of a punitive approach, on the fundamental rights of the petitioners, shall also be assessed in the next part of the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the statutory regime of punishments in universities, which consists solely of penal provisions and excludes all other responses, violates the fundamental rights of students? 2. Whether the punitive provisions of the Statutes of the respective universities manifest the deterrent intent of the law, and a reformist approach to the problem is absent in the statutes? 3. Whether the absence of reformative provisions and the presence of a statutory bias in favor of a punitive approach, on the fundamental rights of the petitioners, shall also be assessed?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the statutory regime of punishments in universities, which consists solely of penal provisions and excludes all other responses, often creates a lack of balance in the actions of the concerned University. The Court further held that the punitive provisions of the Statutes of the respective universities manifest the deterrent intent of the law, and a reformist approach to the problem is absent in the statutes. The Court also held that the absence of reformative provisions and the presence of a statutory bias in favor of a punitive approach, on the fundamental rights of the petitioners, shall also be assessed in the next part of the judgment.
Final Decision: The Court directed the universities to 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. The Court also directed the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development to provide the necessary support to the University to create, standardize and effectuate the reform, self development and rehabilitation programme in the university.
JUDGMENT :
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 (i) Suspension, Enquiry, Current Status |
| 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. The petitioner has assailed the following orders passed by the respondent University:
(i) The order of suspension dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh;
(ii) The order dated 28.03.2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the disciplinary committee and respond to the query, which he was failed to answer on the earlier occasion;
(iii) The charge-sheet dated 16.03.2019.
3. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to be issued to the authorities to permit the petitioner to submit his project work and allow him to appear in the viva-voce test, in which he has been left out and to declare the result of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent University to permit the petitioner to pursue his studies in the ongoing academic sessions.
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.
7. Sri V.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the BHU submits that
