Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Anant Narayan Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and 4 Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 13214 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
The judgment deals with the issue of suspension of a student from the university for an indefinite period due to his involvement in an incident of violence. The court held that the suspension order was arbitrary and illegal as it failed to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the student. The court directed the university to create a reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for students accused of misconduct and to reinstate the student in the Ph.D. course along with the said program.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), was suspended from the university for an indefinite period for his involvement in an incident of violence. The suspension order was passed under the university's ordinance governing maintenance of discipline and grievances procedure. The petitioner challenged the suspension order on the ground that it was arbitrary and illegal as it failed to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the student.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suspension order was arbitrary and illegal as it failed to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the student. The court noted that the petitioner had a clean record prior to the incident and that he had tendered an apology for his actions. The court also noted that the university had not created any structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for students accused of misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order was arbitrary and illegal? 2. Whether the university was required to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the student before passing the suspension order? 3. Whether the university was required to create a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for students accused of misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order was arbitrary and illegal as it failed to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the student. The court noted that the petitioner had a clean record prior to the incident and that he had tendered an apology for his actions. The court also noted that the university had not created any structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for students accused of misconduct. The court further held that the university was required to consider the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the student before passing the suspension order and that the university was required to create a structured reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for students accused of misconduct.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order. The court directed the university to create a reform, self-development, and rehabilitation program for students accused of misconduct and to reinstate the student in the Ph.D. course along with the said program.
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 30.03.2019, passed by the Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, suspending the petitioner from all privileges and activities of the University.
2. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the authorities and permit the petitioner to pursue his Integrated Rural Development and Management (IRDM) course as well as Ph.D. course and permit the petitioner to participate in the activities of the University.
B. Arguments of the learned counsels 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, and 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 Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V. D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the IIT BHU, contends that the IIT BHU, as a matter of policy accepts and is willi
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
