Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Shahzaman Khan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5670 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary action in response to student misconduct. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for and against the imposition of penalties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. historical and contextual background to disciplinary actions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. necessity of balancing disciplinary measures with reformative approaches. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. consent and cooperation of parties in establishing reform programs. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. integration of punitive and reformative approaches in student discipline. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 7. proportionality in punishment and reform initiatives. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 8. legal standards governing punishment in student misconduct cases. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 9. judicial oversight of university disciplinary actions. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 10. implementation and oversight of reform programs in educational institutions. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 11. issues of due process and proportionality in disciplinary actions. (Para 75 , 76 , 78) |
| 12. court’s directives for the implementation of reform programs. (Para 82 , 83 , 84) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
| I | Introduction & Facts |
| II | Arguments of learned counsels for the parties |
| III | Legal Backdrop to the controversy |
| IV | Anant Narayan Mishra Vs. Union of India; Mohammad Ghayas Vs. State of U.P. and others; and Piyush Yadav Vs. Union of India and others |
| (a) Directions | |
| (b) Compliance | |
| i UGC : Issuance of notification | |
| ii University: Changes in First Statutes | |
| V | UGC Guidelines dated 12.04.2023 – Implementation |
| VI | Historical Perspectives of disciplinary approach in institutions of higher learning |
| VII | Punishment Regimes in first statutes of University, UGC Guidelines & Jurisprudence holding the field |
| VIII | Reform programme and compliance of judgment in Mohammad Ghayas (supra) |
| IX | Validity of the impugned orders |
| X | Conclusions & Directions |
| XI | Appendix |
I. Introduction & Facts:
2. The issue which arises for consideration in this and the companion writ petitions is the approach to be adopted by universities while dealing with misconduct by students.
3. The petitioner is an undergoing Ph.D. in Political Science and JRF student in the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the AMU). The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by the Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University expelling him for 10 years from all the privileges of the University w.e.f. 25.6.2016, and further debarring him from further studies or admission or re-admission in the University.
4. The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 9.10.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Grievance Committee Section, Aligarh Muslim University rejecting his appeal for revocation of the order of expulsion.
5. The cause for expelling and debarring the petitioner as disclosed in the order dated 30.7.2019 in a nutshell is that a confrontation took place between the two groups of students near the Proctor office. Heated arguments ensued between the parties which escalated into firing of gunshots. Two persons namely Mohd. Mahtab Khan (Ex student) and Mohd. Waqif (non student) sustained grievous injuries in the incident. Mohd. Mahtab Khan was taken to medical college hospital where he was declared dead. The death of Mohd. Mahtab provoked a group of 200-250 students (the petitioner went one among them) to go on rampage. The mob indulged in rowdyism at the main gate of the proctor's office caused damage to the office, ransacked valuable pictures, fittings, furnitures and computers.
6. The disciplinary proceedings that followed resulted in the impugned disciplinary actions against the applicant.
II. Arguments of the learned counsels for parties
7. Shri Prab
Students facing misconduct charges must be provided with opportunities for reform alongside punitive measures, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
Universities must balance disciplinary actions with reform opportunities; violations of natural justice render punitive measures legally untenable.
The court established that universities must adopt a reformative approach alongside disciplinary actions to ensure justice and uphold students' rights, emphasizing compliance with principles of natur....
Disciplinary actions in universities must integrate reformative measures alongside punitive measures to ensure justice and uphold the dignity of students.
Educational institutions must prioritize reformative measures over punitive actions, ensuring adherence to guidelines and principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the need for proportionality and discretion in disciplinary matters, stating that harsh penalties like permanent expulsion are disproportionate and should allow for opportunities....
Suicide by students in various Educational Institutions – There is necessity to build a robust institutionalized response for ensuring mental well-being of students studying in Higher Educational Ins....
Point of Law – Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or e....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
