Back
NLU Tripura VC Defends Registrar Appointment Amid Student Concerns, High Court on THRC Proceedings
The Vice-Chancellor of , Prof Yogesh Pratap Singh, has robustly defended the appointment of Dr Jayanta Dhar as Registrar in-charge, while alleging that a recent student letter raising governance and safety concerns was instigated by the university’s former Registrar, Prof Nachiketa Mittal. The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of a on proceedings before the regarding an anonymous complaint against Prof Mittal.
In an interview, Prof Singh maintained that Dr Dhar’s appointment on was made after , following Prof Mittal’s resignation on amid the . The VC acknowledged that an assistant professor should not ordinarily hold the Registrar’s post, but stated that the university had no alternative. “I also understand that assistant professor should not be appointed but we didn't have any other option. We also asked (the state) government if they could spare an officer. They also said they don't have sufficient staff. So we have to work within that limitation but we are trying to get a regular registrar soon,” he said.
Background: The Resignation and the High Court
The sequence of events began with an before the THRC in May, alleging against Prof Mittal. The THRC initiated proceedings, but on , the temporarily stayed those proceedings, holding that under , an ought to be dismissed . The Court also observed that the allegations did not appear to amount to violations of , though it noted that provisions of the or the could be attracted if a formal complaint were made.
Prof Singh said that the university could not initiate proceedings through its as no one had filed a written complaint. This gap between anonymous allegations and formal action has raised questions about the effectiveness of institutional mechanisms in addressing workplace harassment in higher education institutions.
The Appointment of the Registrar in-charge
After Prof Mittal’s resignation, the Assistant Registrar filled in for about three weeks. During this period, Prof Singh consulted the , which recommended appointing the senior-most available faculty member. That led to Prof Dhar, an assistant professor, being appointed as in-charge Registrar on . A formal note seeking the State government’s approval was sent on , and the concerned minister signed off on .
The VC’s explanation highlights a structural challenge faced by many newly established National Law Universities: a shortage of senior faculty and administrative staff. NLUT itself was established only in (the university will complete three years in ), and its regular faculty complement is still being built. The appointment of a relatively junior faculty member to a key administrative post may be pragmatic, but it also raises concerns about experience and institutional capacity.
Student Grievances: Snakes, Answer Scripts, and Faculty Absence
In a letter dated , NLUT students raised a series of serious issues. They claimed that venomous snakes had been found in the Girls Hostel with no remedial action, that answer scripts were not being anonymised and were being withheld from students, and that no existed under . The letter also alleged that financial disclosures fell short of requirements, and that some faculty on the roster had not been on campus in four years.
Prof Singh responded to each point. On the snake issue, he did not directly comment but noted that the university would address safety concerns. Regarding answer scripts, he said the university sets a two-week window from the start of each semester for students to collect them, and that some students miss this deadline. He added that the matter had been raised about a month earlier and that the university had agreed to extend the window to three or four weeks. On the claim of faculty absence, he pointed out that NLUT itself will complete only three years, so the statement about faculty not being on campus in four years is factually impossible. He said regular faculty members attend under a biometric attendance system, and visiting faculty have either visited campus or conducted lectures online.
Financial Disclosures and ICC Functioning
The students also criticized the university’s financial transparency. Prof Singh acknowledged that the university had published its financial statements for the first two years, but took them down after typographical errors were found. Corrected disclosures would be uploaded again in due course. On the functioning of the Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act, he said the ICC was constituted in NLUT’s first year, with its details on the university’s website.
The students’ call for a consultative body was also addressed. Prof Singh stated that the does not provide for a student consultative committee, but he indicated openness to creating a student representative body to enable direct communication with the administration.
Allegations of Instigation by Former Registrar
A key element of the VC’s defense is his assertion that the student letter was not spontaneous but orchestrated. He alleged that Prof Mittal has been in Agartala for the past 15 to 20 days, contacting and trying to influence students, and that the letter was circulated with his instigation and encouragement. Prof Singh said he intended to inform the Chancellor, Justice MS Ramachandra Rao, of this.
This allegation, if true, would suggest that the former Registrar is using student grievances as a tool in a personal or professional dispute with the current administration. However, the students themselves have explicitly stated that their complaint is not about Prof Mittal. The VC’s claim adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, potentially diverting attention from the substantive issues raised by the students.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
The NLUT controversy touches on several important legal and administrative issues. First, the appointment of an assistant professor as Registrar in-charge raises questions about compliance with the and the Regulations on minimum qualifications for administrative posts. While the VC’s justification of necessity may be accepted in the short term, it underscores the need for a clear policy on interim appointments in newly established universities.
Second, the handling of the complaint highlights the limitations of anonymous complaints under the POSH Act. The ’s on THRC proceedings reinforces the principle that anonymous complaints must meet a threshold to trigger formal investigation. This has implications for how institutions design their ICC procedures to ensure that genuine complaints are not stifled while protecting the .
Third, the students’ demand for greater transparency in financial disclosures and grievance mechanisms reflects a growing awareness of accountability in higher education. The RTI Act’s requirements apply to public authorities, and NLUT, being a national law university funded by the state, is obligated to comply. The university’s admission of typographical errors and subsequent removal of financial statements may be seen as a lapse in governance, but the commitment to re-upload corrected versions is a positive step.
Finally, the issue of student representation is critical. While the may not provide for a consultative committee, the VC’s willingness to create a student representative body is a constructive move. Such bodies can channel student concerns effectively and reduce the likelihood of confrontational letters or protests.
Conclusion
The NLU Tripura episode serves as a case study in the challenges faced by newly established law universities in India. Balancing limited resources with the demands of governance, safety, and transparency is no easy task. Prof Yogesh Pratap Singh’s defense of the registrar appointment and his rebuttal of student allegations may calm immediate tensions, but the underlying issues—staffing shortages, financial disclosure norms, and effective grievance mechanisms—require sustained attention. The ’s on the THRC proceedings adds a judicial dimension, reminding all stakeholders of the legal boundaries within which complaints must be processed.
As the university prepares a detailed point-by-point reply to the students and plans direct meetings, the legal community will watch closely to see whether NLUT emerges from this controversy with stronger institutions or deeper divisions. For now, the VC’s narrative of necessity and external instigation will be tested by the students’ ongoing demands for accountability and safety.
