Inquiry by Judicial Officers into Caste Discrimination at NLU Prayagraj Stayed by Allahabad High Court

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has stayed proceedings in a writ petition that had ordered an inquiry by judicial officers into allegations of caste-based discrimination at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj. The Bench, comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh, prima facie found that the university’s own Equal Opportunity Cell should have been allowed to examine the matter, rather than outsourcing the inquiry to external judicial officers.

A Clash Over Institutional Autonomy

The case originated from complaints filed by two students—a Ph.D. research scholar and a fifth-semester B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student—against Dr. Deepak Sharma, the Head of the Department of Law and Boys’ Hostel Warden. The students alleged that Dr. Sharma used his academic and administrative authority as an “instrument of caste-based humiliation and retaliation.” One student claimed Dr. Sharma remarked, “The one who got the highest marks in Constitutional Law, let him get the highest marks in my subject now,” and questioned the student’s need for reservation despite coming from a “good family.” Another comment targeted a faculty member appointed under the reserved category.

In response, a Single Judge of the High Court had directed two judicial officers—Archana Singh-I, Judge of the Small Cause Court, Prayagraj, and Arun Kumar Yadava, Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj—to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. The order explicitly stated it was not an expression of opinion on the allegations’ correctness but noted their seriousness required examination by an “impartial agency.”

The Appeal and University’s Role

Challenging this order, Dr. Deepak Sharma argued through Senior Counsels Sri Anil Tiwari and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi that the university already had a functioning Equal Opportunity Cell, and the students themselves had sought an inquiry through that mechanism after excluding him. They contended that the Single Judge should not have bypassed this institutional framework.

The university, represented by Senior Counsel Sri Rahul Agrawal, submitted that it had acceded to the court’s proposal for a judicial inquiry to ensure fairness and transparency. Counsel for the students, Sri Shivam Agrawal, noted that while they initially sought an inquiry under the Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, they did not oppose the judicial inquiry after the university agreed to it.

Court’s Reasoning: Preserving Institutional Mechanisms

The Division Bench expressed a clear prima facie view that the university’s internal mechanism should not have been sidelined. The court observed:

“Even if the allegations are of a serious nature, the power of the University to examine such allegations through an appropriately constituted Equal Opportunity Cell ought not to have been taken away, as it is within the domain of the University to look into the welfare of the students and deal with situations as they arise.”

The Bench noted that the inquiry report by the judicial officers was due on September 24, 2026. It directed that the Special Appeal be listed as a fresh case on September 29, 2026, and if the report is already prepared, it should be placed before the court in a sealed cover.

Interim Stay and Next Steps

In a significant interim order, the Division Bench stayed “further proceeding in Writ C No. 37012 of 2026” until the next hearing. The appellant also sought a stay on other directions in the Single Judge’s order, but the court deferred that request, stating it would examine the matter on the next date.

The case now awaits hearing on September 29, when the court will decide the fate of the judicial inquiry and the future course of action regarding the caste discrimination allegations.