Karnataka High Court
Ashish Suman And Ors. vs National Law School Of India University ... on 8 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2003KANT136, ILR2002KAR3997, 2002(5)KARLJ518, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 136, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3009, (2002) ILR (KANT) (3) 3997, (2002) 5 KANT LJ 518
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
ORDER N. Kumar, J.
1. Petitioners are the final year students of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Degree Course in the National Law School of India University. They have completed all the previous trimesters of their course successfully. Their case is that on 31-12-2001, a get together was organised by the final year students of the respondent-University for celebrating the New Year's Eve. One Mr. Siddarth Rao, a student of third year in the respondent-University had invited one Mr. Praneet Reddy who is not a student of the respondent-University but is a roommate and friend. The said Praneet Reddy and Mr. Siddarth Rao have rented a house in Nagarbhavi, Bangalore and are living together, outside the respondent-University campus. Their further case is that Mr. Praneet Reddy had consumed alcohol when he came to the said get together and harassed some of the girl students of the respondent-University. He behaved indecently with some of the female students at get together. It is alleged that at one point of time he even molested one of the girls, who is a relative of the first petitioner. However, judging the mood of the students and girls involved, he ran away from get together. It is stated that, on 25-4-2002, the petitioners went to Praneet Reddy's residence and enquired about the aforesaid incident from him. However, instead of being apologetic, Mr. Praneet Reddy started losing his temper and started abusing the petitioners in a most filthy and unparliamentary language. Thereafter, they have told him that if he did not apologize to the concerned girls and in particular the first petitioner's relative, then they would be constrained to lodge a police complaint against him. They further informed him that a copy of the said complaint would also be sent to his company where he works.
2. One Mr. Madan Rao sent a fax message to respondent 1 stating that the petitioners and one Amanpreet Singh went to the room of Mr. Praneet Reddy with whom his son is staying and a cook by name Venkat was locked up and Praneet was severely beaten in the presence of Sid-darth, and a strong smell of alcohol was also reported. Respondent 3, on the basis of the above fax sent by Madan Mohan Rao and on the basis of the statement obtained by his son Siddarth Rao without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to explain, illegally and arbitrarily suspended the petitioners debarring them from attending the classes, enter the University and stay in the hostel, with immediate effect till further orders. The said memo dated 27-4-2002 was served on them. They were also informed that an enquiry had to be conducted against them, for disciplinary action as the same involved the prestige and honour of the University. The said issue is purportedly referred to the Disciplinary Matters Advisory, Review and Investigation Committee of the University. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Committee has issued a charge-sheet dated 29-4-2002, which was served on them on 30-4-2002. Petitioners were charged with various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have submitted their reply to the said charges. The petitioners requested the authorities to permit them to attend the classes, write examination and to submit the seminar projects and participate in the recruitment courses pending enquiry. The petitioners' course was ending on 1-6-2002. They approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents on several grounds and sought for quashing of the memo dated 27-4-2002 and the charge-sheet dated 29-4-2002 and to issue a direction declaring that the suspension of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and for quashing of the entire enquiry proceedings and for such other relief to which they are entitled to.
3. Respondents have filed their detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the writ petitions and they have set-out in detail their version of the incident and the responsibility of the authorities to maintain discipline in the University and submitted that the action taken by them is strictly in accordance with law and therefore, they submit that there is no merit in the writ petitions and they, are liable to be dismissed.
4. This Court while entertaining the writ petitions on 13-5-2002 passed the following interim order.-
"The suspension order issued by the National Law School of India University by its Registrar is stayed and the petitioners are entitled to appear for the campus interview, other examinations and also submit project report as regular students subject to pendency of the writ petitions. They shall not claim equities in case the writ petitions are decided against them on merits".
5. It is submitted that on the very same day, the order of suspension passed earlier was revoked and the petitioners were permitted to attend the classes, submit the project reports and take the examination etc., and the petitioners have completed the course.
6. The petitioners have filed an application I.A. No. I for a direction stating that on 15-7-2002, the respondents declared the results in professional ethics of the entire final year batch. They have not declared the results of the petitioners and have withheld the same on the ground that the enquiry is pending against them. They also contend that they were also told that there is shortage of attendance and on account of these writ petitions, the results are not announced. They submit that, because of the suspension order passed, they were prevented from attending the classes and they have missed the classes for 17 days. Even excluding 17 days, they have attendance and even if there is shortage of attendance, the absence is not willful, but it is on account of the respondents' conduct and therefore same cannot be held against them. Further, they have stated that the University has decided that the convocation ceremony for the final year students is scheduled to be held on 11-8-2002. Unless the results are announced, the petitioners may not be in a position to obtain degrees and participate in the said convocation and therefore they have sought for an interim direction to the respondents to declare the final year results of the petitioners in the examination and allow the petitioners to collect their degrees at the convocation to be held on 11-8-2002.
7. In reply to the said application, respondents have filed their objections. They submit that the degree to be awarded for the successful graduates will contain four parts, including the degree certificate, performance record and co-curricular activities and the certificate of conduct and character. As there is a serious charge levelled against the petitioners herein, which is a subject-matter of incomplete enquiry, it is not possible to issue conduct and character certificate. If they are found guilty, the University will have to take disciplinary action which may include rustication, discollegiation, etc. If the degree is conferred, the enquiry would become a meaningless formality and no action pursuant to the enquiry if need be, can be taken. Therefore, they contend that under the circumstances, neither the examination results can be declared nor the degree conferred upon the petitioners. They also contend that none of the petitioners have fulfilled the requirement of 75% attendance during the trimester for the professional conduct and ethics course, which is a mandatory course for the third trimester of the final year. On this ground also they are not entitled to conferment of degree. They admit that the convocation ceremony is scheduled to be held on 11-8-2002. Therefore, they contend that the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
8. Sri A.G. Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 32 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986 provides for discipline. Though the final authority responsible for maintaining discipline, it vests with the Director and notwithstanding the same the punishment of debarring a student from the examination or rustication from the school or a hostel or an institution, shall on the report of the Director be considered and imposed by the Executive Council provided that no such punishment shall be imposed without giving to the student concerned a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. Therefore, he submits that though the order dated 27-4-2002 purports to be innocuous, the order of suspension pending enquiry, the effect of the said order is rustication from the school and hostel and the institution. Therefore, it amounts to a punishment which only the Executive Council is authorised under law to impose and that too after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. Admittedly, no such procedure is followed in the instant case. Therefore, prima facie, the action initiated by the respondents is one without jurisdiction, void ab initio and therefore petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for. When the respondent-authorities have withdrawn the order of suspension and permitted the students to participate in all the activities in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, when the petitioners have completed the course, taken the examination, not announcing the results solely on the ground of pendency either of the enquiry or these writ petitions is wholly arbitrary. The apprehension of the respondents is totally misconceived because under Section 31 of the National Law School of India Act, if after enquiry it is found that the petitioners are guilty of the charges alleged against them, the University has the power to withdraw the degree which is conferred to them and therefore, when the allegations against the petitioners are nothing to do with maintaining the discipline in the institution, it would be unjust to prevent them from taking degrees. Therefore, he submits that a direction sought for is to be granted.
9. Per contra, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contend that the first respondent is an institution of international repute. They are bound to maintain the discipline in the school. When in accordance with the rules they have initiated enquiry proceedings, till the proceedings are completed and petitioners are exonerated they would not be entitled to conferment of degree which includes the conduct certificate of the students. He also submits that once they are conferred with the degree, thereafter, if they are found guilty, then the entire enquiry conducted by them becomes infructuous. Once the power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, power to suspend pending enquiry is conceded to the University, their actions should not be interfered with at this stage. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for.
10. I have heard the learned Counsels and have gone through the materials placed on record. Without going into the disputed question of fact, as this interim application could be disposed off on the basis of the undisputed facts and in the light of the provisions contained in the National Law School of India Act, I proceed to consider this interim application.
11. The incident in question has not happened within the University campus. The alleged assault is not between the students of the University. The alleged assault has taken place outside the University and the person who has been assaulted has nothing to do with the University. The entire enquiry proceedings are initiated on the basis of a fax message received from Hyderabad by the father of Sri Siddarth Rao who was staying outside the University campus i.e., living in a private house. I had the benefit of reading the statement of Siddarth Rao and also the evidence adduced in the enquiry proceedings by three witnesses. The undisputed facts which emerge from the said material is, Praneet Reddy was drunk and not the students. The fax message gives an impression that the petitioners under the influence of alcohol have assaulted Praneet Reddy which is patently false. Secondly, the evidence of Siddarth Rao clearly shows that his sister is also studying in the college. Siddarth Rao has categorically stated that his sister complained about the misbehaviour of Praneet Reddy with her friend. From these two admitted facts, prima facie it appears that this Praneet Reddy is in the habit of taking drinks which is also admitted by him, and he appears to have misbehaved with the lady students of the University. Praneet Reddy in his evidence has categorically stated that he did not sustain visible injuries like scars, bruises, or contusions. The petitioners do admit that they did visit the house of Praneet Reddy, enquired with him about this incident and called upon him to apologise. In the background of these undisputed facts, in my opinion, the incident has nothing to do with the discipline of the University and its students. They are blowing this incident out of proportion. Even assuming that they wanted to hold an enquiry, it 'could have been done without hurting the interest of the petitioners, whose guilt is yet to be proved. When they prevent the students from attending the classes, throw them out from the hostel, campus and prevent them from participating in all the activities, this action of the respondents prima facie appears to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioners. 17 days the petitioners have been kept away from the college. Whether the order of suspension is revoked in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court or on the ground that their evidence is completed is secondary, but the fact remains that the order of suspension is recalled. The students have been permitted to attend the classes, submit the project reports and to attend all other requirements to complete the course. When the convocation is to be held on 11-8-2002, when all their friends' results have been announced, withholding of the petitioners' results solely on the ground of pending enquiry or pending of these writ petitions and on the ground of attendance shortage according to me is unjust. As is clear from Section 31 of the Act, the authorities have been vested with the power to withdraw the degree, which is conferred on the students. In the instant case, till today, no police case is lodged against the petitioners. Only the disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the respondents. Even before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, under the guise of suspending the students they have been punished. They are prevented from attending the classes, thrown out of the campus, which ultimately has resulted in their results being not announced which would virtually result in the petitioners being deprived of the degree for which they have struggled for the last five years. If ultimately they are exonerated in the enquiry proceedings, no doubt the authority would give them a degree, but for ever in life they would be prevented from attending convocation scheduled to be held on 11th of this month.
12. Section 32 of the Act reads as under.-
"Discipline.--(1) The final authority responsible for maintenance of discipline among the students of the school shall be the Direc-
tor. His directions in that behalf shall be carried out by the Heads of the school, hostels and institutions.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-clause (1) the punishment of debarring a student from the examination or rustication from the school or a hostel or an institution, shall on the report of the Director be considered and imposed by the Executive Council:
Provided that no such punishment shall be imposed without giving to the student concerned a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him".
13. It clearly provides rustication from the school or a hostel or an institution is one of the punishment which can be imposed on the students and the same shall be imposed by the Executive Council after giving to the student concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The order of suspension passed in this case is not an order of suspension simplicitor. By the order of suspension, the petitioners are prevented from attending the classes, entering the University campus without the specific written permission of the authorities concerned. The word 'rustication' has not been defined under the Act. Both the Oxford Dictionary and Webster's Third International Dictionary have given the meaning of the word 'rusticate' to mean expulsion for a specified temporary period. It is well-known that the word 'rusticate' owes its origin to the word 'rustic' or a man from the country. 'To rusticate' means to send the man away to the country. However, the meaning in relation to educational institutions must necessarily be understood as expulsion for a given period of time and no more. This power of imposing rustication from the school is vested under the Act on the Executive Council, as it would be a punishment to be imposed after hearing the students and on they being found guilty of the charges. Therefore, that portion of the order of suspension memo which would have the effect of rustication which is passed by the Registrar is one without jurisdiction and therefore, prima facie the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
14. First respondent-institution is an autonomous body of international reputation. Students from all over the country after being successful in a competitive examination are admitted to the college. In the country, there are few institutions which can compete with the academic excellence of this University. Absolute autonomy is given to this institute to maintain its standard. Higher the power, authorities exercising the power should be careful and judicious in exercising such powers. Any action taken by the University with the intention of maintaining high standards and discipline, cannot be the subject-matter of the judicial review. At the same time, it cannot be said that by exercising judicial restraint the Courts have to close their eyes from interfering with the actions of such autonomous authorities when it is demonstrated that a palpable injustice is done under the guise of maintaining the discipline. It is said that the Principal acts as a second parent of his students. It will not be possible to delineate his powers in clear terms, in the same way as the rights of a parent over his child cannot be clearly enumerated. The Principal is the best judge to determine what action is to be taken against a student accused of pre-admission misconduct. To limit his powers to the misconducts in the course of studies would render him ineffective as the head of the institution. Therefore, it is unconceivable that a parent, while trying to correct and maintain discipline would ruin the child. Same should be the case with the Principal. Courts have generally set certain limitations and self-imposed restrictions on them while dealing with decisions of academic bodies under their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Courts "fear to tread" and decline "to rush in", to quash decisions of responsible academic bodies. This does not mean a licence for doing injustice being judicially accorded to such bodies, but a fair expectation that they will not deviate ordinarily from the path of fair play. If they palpably do, the writ must go. The ultimate test is the response of the judicial conscience to the doings of these bodies, in the given case, remembering the incurable wound on the career and the indelible stain on the character of the student that may follow upon an unjust accusation and verdict. Academic excellence, international repute, cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate injustice on helpless students and ruin their career and future.
15. In the instant case, by passing an order of suspension contrary to the statute, they have successfully prevented the students attending the classes for 17 days. However, the said order has been revoked. The petitioners are now permitted to attend the classes and to complete the course. An enquiry is still pending. Even before the conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioners cannot be held to be guilty of the charges levelled against them. When they have successfully completed the course, when the results of the persons similarly placed as petitioners were announced and the convocation is fixed on llth of this month, withholding of the results of the petitioners on the ground of either the pending enquiry, the pendency of these writ petitions or on the ground of shortage of attendance for 17 days for which the petitioners are not responsible is per se unjust and arbitrary. The petitioners have studied for a period of five years. There is no past record. Moreover, the allegations against the petitioners have nothing to do with the discipline of the University directly. The victim of the alleged assault, from the material on record, appears to have no grievance against them. Prima facie there appears to be no substance in the allegations made against the petitioners. The action of the respondents in withholding the results and preventing the students from attending the convocation is arbitrary and illegal. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to the declaration of their results and if they are successful, a direction to permit them to attend the convocation to be held on llth of this month. Hence, I pass the following order.-
Respondents are hereby directed to announce the results of the petitioners and also of the 4th student Sri Amanpreet Singh, who is not before this Court, and if they have passed in the course, to grant them all certificates to which they are entitled to and then permit them to participate in the convocation to be held on llth of this month. If any such degree is conferred, it is always subject to the result of these writ petitions, and the pending enquiry.