Back
Students Demand Outside State Registrar; VC Singh Defends Amid Allegations
Students of the () have formally raised concerns over safety, governance, and administrative transparency, demanding the appointment of a Registrar from outside the state. In a detailed response, Vice-Chancellor (VC) Singh defended the university’s actions while drawing attention to a sexual harassment case involving former Registrar-in-charge Prof Nachiketa Mittal. The episode highlights simmering tensions within one of India’s premier law schools, raising questions about institutional accountability, the handling of sexual harassment complaints, and the autonomy of state-appointed officers under the Act.
Background: A University Under Scrutiny
, established under the Act (), has been grappling with allegations of administrative lapses and safety concerns for several months. Students have pointed to issues ranging from inadequate hostel facilities and the presence of snakes on campus to irregularities in examination schedules and attendance policies. However, the most contentious demand is the call for a Registrar from outside the state—a move aimed at ensuring impartiality in the university’s day-to-day administration.
The demand gained urgency after the resignation of Prof Nachiketa Mittal in , following sexual harassment allegations. Prof Mittal, who had been serving as Registrar-in-charge, stepped down after the university’s accepted his resignation. VC Singh, in his response to student representations, noted that Prof Mittal had made “certain admissions” before resigning and that the matter is now . He further expressed concern that “attempts were being made to seek withdrawal of the resignation,” indicating a potential effort to undo the disciplinary action.
Key Developments: The VC’s Response and Student Concerns
In a formal reply to the students’ charter of demands, VC Singh addressed each point with varying degrees of detail. On the issue of the Registrar’s appointment, he stated that the current Registrar-in-charge, Prof Dhar, had been appointed by the under the . However, an office order obtained by student representatives shows that Prof Dhar’s appointment in was approved by VC Singh himself and signed only by the Assistant Registrar, with no mention of any state government involvement. This discrepancy has deepened student mistrust.
“Since then, there have also been repeated attempts to circulate allegations against the University through videos, social media platforms and anonymous communications addressed to various institutions,” Singh wrote. “There have also been attempts to involve and influence certain students in these matters. The University will not be distracted by such activities and will continue to respond to any genuine concern through appropriate institutional and legal channels.”
The VC also confirmed that the statutory audit for the financial year has been completed and will be placed before the . He characterised the remaining student complaints—snakes on campus, exam scheduling, attendance irregularities, and hostel conditions—as “routine” matters that the administration would resolve.
Legal Analysis: , Autonomy, and Governance Standards
The reference is significant. While the sexual harassment case against Prof Mittal is pending in court, the university cannot publicly discuss the details without risking . This legal constraint has allowed the administration to deflect some criticisms, but it also places a burden on the institution to demonstrate that internal processes were followed scrupulously. The fact that the accepted the resignation and that attempts to withdraw it are alleged suggests a complex internal dynamic.
From a governance perspective, the dispute over the Registrar’s appointment raises questions about the ’s provisions. typically vests the power to appoint the Registrar in the Vice-Chancellor, subject to approval by the or the State Government. If the state government indeed appointed Prof Dhar, as VC Singh claims, then the absence of any reference to such appointment in the office order is a procedural lapse. Alternatively, if the appointment was made solely by the VC, then the students’ demand for an outside-state Registrar may be directed at the wrong authority—the state government may have no role in the selection.
Furthermore, the students’ demand for an “outside state” Registrar reflects a deeper concern about local influence and nepotism. In many National Law Universities, the Registrar is often drawn from the local bureaucracy or judiciary, which can lead to conflicts of interest. By insisting on an outsider, the students are seeking to insulate the office from parochial pressures—a demand that has legal merit if the does not mandate a local candidate.
Impact on Legal Practice and University Administration
This controversy serves as a case study for lawyers and administrators working with higher education institutions. The interplay between sexual harassment complaints, resignation, and status is delicate. Institutions must ensure that they do not inadvertently compromise legal proceedings while addressing stakeholder concerns. The situation also underscores the importance of transparent appointment procedures. An office order that contradicts the VC’s public statement can undermine institutional credibility and invite litigation.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights potential causes of action under administrative law: students could challenge the Registrar’s appointment on grounds of or . Additionally, the tag may be used to block public discussion, but it does not prevent the university from implementing routine administrative reforms. The ’s role in overseeing the audit will be critical—any irregularities could trigger further legal scrutiny.
Conclusion
As navigates this crisis, the legal community will watch closely. The VC’s response, while firm, leaves several factual contradictions unresolved. The students’ demand for an outside-state Registrar is not merely a procedural request; it is a call for structural reform. Whether the university can address these issues within the existing legal framework—or whether external intervention from courts or the state government becomes necessary—remains to be seen. For now, the matter is , but the broader questions of governance, transparency, and safety at India’s national law universities are very much alive.
