Allahabad High Court
Abhinav Kumar And 5 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 16 February, 2018
Author: Manoj Misra
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD REPORTABLE Judgment reserved on 01.02.2018 Judgment delivered on 16.02.2018 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 584 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abhinav Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey, Mr. G.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Rohan Gupta, Sabhajeet Singh and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1419 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shivam Kant Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare; Ashok Khare; Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Rohan Gupta, Sabhajeet Singh and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2554 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abhinav Arora Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swetashwa Agarwal, Anoop Trivedi, Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Mr. Rohan Gupta and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2903 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kashish Thakran Respondent :- Union Of India Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Mr Rohan Gupta Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
All these four petitions assail decision of the Senate of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (in short the Institute or IIT, Kanpur) imposing punishment upon the petitioners for their alleged involvement in incidents of ragging which allegedly occurred in the intervening night of 19th and 20th August, 2017 in Hall-II within the campus of the Institute.
As common questions of fact and law are involved in these four petitions, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being decided by a common judgment and order.
Writ C No. 584 of 2018 was the first petition to be filed in which, by order dated 08.01.2018, this Court had required the counsel representing the Institute to file a detailed counter-affidavit disclosing the procedure adopted by the Institute to ascertain the guilt of the petitioners. The court had also required the respondent-Institute to bring on record the nature of the complaints made and the material brought in support thereof with full disclosure of the procedure adopted to deal with such material so as to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether the procedure adopted for imposing punishment upon the petitioners was in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
Pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2018 passed in Writ C No. 584 of 2018, a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Institute. Apart from the counter-affidavit, a compilation of various documents including complaints and the material in support thereof has also been supplied by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel representing the Institute.
Although counter-affidavit has been filed only in Writ C No. 584 of 2018 but since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these four petitions, keeping in mind that the matter needs urgent consideration as it relates to interest of students undergoing various courses in the Institute and any delay in decision of these petitions would frustrate the very purpose for which they have been filed, this Court did not consider it necessary to invite /await filing of counter-affidavit in each of the four petitions. Therefore, since necessary records were brought on record in Writ C No.584 of 2018, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these petitions were heard together, at length, and are being decided by this order.
Before noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to notice few facts which are necessary for adjudication of these petitions.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is an institute of national importance incorporated and declared as such by the Institute of Technology Act, 1961. To enforce discipline and good conduct amongst the students of the institute, conduct and discipline rules have been framed and are found in Ordinance No.9, which has been brought on record as Annexure C.A. 6 to the counter affidavit filed in Writ C No. 584 of 2018. Clauses 9.6 to 9.11 of Ordinance No.9 are relevant for the controversy at hand, and the same is extracted and reproduced herein below:-
"9.6. Ragging, in any form, is strictly prohibited and any violation shall be considered as a serious offence, leading even to dismissal from the Institute. 9.7 The Senate shall constitute a Standing Committee to investigate the alleged misdemeanor reported and recommend a suitable course of action. The Senate shall also prescribe the procedure for dealing with the recommendations of this Committee. Violation of the Code of Conduct of students, by a student or a group of students can be referred to this Committee by any student or a teacher and the Director or any other functionary of the Institute. 9.8 In very exceptional circumstances, the Chairman, Senate may appoint a Special Disciplinary Committee to investigate and/or recommend the action to be taken in case of any act of gross indiscipline involving a large number of students which may tarnish the image of the Institute. 9.9 The case of a defaulting student recommended for dismissal from the Institute shall ordinarily be referred to the Senate for its final decision. 9.10 A defaulting student who feels aggrieved with the punishment awarded may prefer an appeal to the Chairman, Senate stating clearly the reasons why the punishment should not be awarded. The Senate shall prescribe the procedure to process such an appeal. 9.11 A student who is found guilty of some major offence may not be recommended by the Senate to the Board of Governors for the award of a degree/diploma/certificate even if all the academic requirements have been satisfactorily completed by the concerned student."
As to what constitutes ragging, both parties have placed reliance on definition of ragging provided by Regulation 3 of UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009, framed under Section 26(1)(g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short Regulations, 2009), which is stated to have been adopted by the Institute and posted on its web site. Regulation 3 of Regulations, 2009 is reproduced herein below:-
"3. What constitutes Ragging.- Ragging constitutes one or more of any of the following acts:
a. any conduct by any student or students whether by words spoken or written or by an act which has the effect of teasing, treating or handling with rudeness a fresher or any other student; b. indulging in rowdy or indisciplined activities by any student or students which causes or is likely to cause annoyance, hardship, physical or psychological harm or to raise fear or apprehension thereof in any fresher or any other student; c. asking any student to do any act which such student will not in the ordinary course do and which has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame, or torment or embarrassment so as to adversely affect the physique or psyche of such fresher or any other student; d. any act by a senior student that prevents, disrupts or disturbs the regular academic activity of any other student or a fresher; e. exploiting the services of a fresher or any other student for completing the academic tasks assigned to an individual or a group of students. f. any act of financial extortion or forceful expenditure burden put on a fresher or any other student by students; g. any act of physical abuse including all variants of it: sexual abuse, homosexual assaults, stripping, forcing obscene and lewd acts, gestures, causing bodily harm or any other danger to health or person; h. any act or abuse by spoken words, emails, post, public insults which would also include deriving perverted pleasure, vicarious or sadistic thrill from actively or passively participating in the discomfiture to fresher or any other student; i. any act that affects the mental health and self-confidence of a fresher or any other student with or without an intent to derive a sadistic pleasure or showing off power, authority or superiority by a student over any fresher or any other student."
From the compilation supplied by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the Institute, it appears that complaints were received to the effect that fresher students of 2017 Batch were ragged by their seniors in the intervening night of 19th and 20th August, 2017. Upon receipt of such complaints, the matter was referred to the Senate Students Affairs Committee (in short S-SAC or SSAC), which is a fact finding and recommending body. The S-SAC in its third meeting of 2017-18, held on 02nd September, 2017, prepared a recommendation and forwarded the same to the Chairman, Senate, IIT, Kanpur, vide letter dated 05th September, 2017. The report of S-SAC is extracted and reproduced herein below:-
AP-326 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/1st/21.09.2017 "Report of the Senate Students' Affairs Committee on the basis of its 2017-18/3rd Meeting. The 2017-18/3rd meeting was held on 02 September 2017.
The following members attended the meeting: Dr. P. Shunmugaraj (Chairman), Dr. Santanu Misra, Dr. Mohua Banerjee, Dr. Kallol Mandal, Dr. Debopam Das, Dr. Amitabh Bandyopadhyay, Dr. Shakti Gupta, Mr. Kunal Kapila, Mr. Aditya Desai and Mr. Ayush Pathak. As Mr. Tutuj Jugade's name appeared in the complaints, he recused himself from the meeting. It was brought to the notice of the SSAC that ragging incidents happened in Hall 2 on 20th August 2017 morning between 00:30 hrs-6:00 hrs. The members went through a few of the written/e-mail statements submitted by the students. Following complaints were described in the statements:
i. Y16 students including the HEC members of Hall 2 were involved in ragging the first year students; ii. Several physical and humiliating tasks, were given to the students by the seniors to perform; iii. In treasure hunt event, on 14-15 August night, some 1st year students were sent to Hall 1 while some others were sent to a room in SBRA in which Mr. Nikhil Kurele, an alumni was staying.
(a) Mr. Nikhil Kurele along with his friends were involved in ragging the first year students.
(b) In Hall 1, the President Gymkhana (Mr. Jugade) has told some first year students that if they complain to DOSA, then the DOSA would call him only and he would deny;
iv. during the orientation programme the student guides and student coordinators forced the freshers to do some inappropriate acts.
SSAC discussed the matter at length and recommended the following:
1. Student HEC members of Hall 2 and all the senior students (Names provided in Annexure 1) whose names were received in regard to the ragging incident in Hall 2 should be immediately terminated from their academic programmes. They should be asked to leave the campus immediately. In accordance with AICTE notification dated July 1, 2009 on Prevention and Prohibition of ragging in technical institutes (under Section 23 and 10) it is recommended that the institute files an FIR against these students.
2. The identity of the complainants should be protected at all costs.
3. The institute should file an FIR against Mr. Nikhil Kurele and his friends present in his room on the nigh of 14-15 August, 2017. The accommodation allotted to Mr. Nikhil should be revoked immediately and he should be banned from staying/entering the campus.
AP-327 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/1st/21.09.2017
4. All UG Counselling Service Student Guides and the UG Counselling Service co-ordinators to be awarded Level 1 punishment "Advised to be careful along with writing a letter of apology".
5. The President SG, Mr. Rutuj Jugade to be awarded Level 6 punishment, "Barred from any student elections or holding ay executive post in Hall or Gymkhana or representing IIT in any event".
Note of Dissent on 5th recommendation: The members, Mr. Kunal Kapila, Mr. Aditya Desai and Mr. Ayush Pathak registered the following dissent note with respect to the fifth recommendation: "We do no agree with the level of punishment awarded to the President SG, Mr. Rutuj Jugade".
Dr. A. Bandyopadhyay Dr. P. Shunmugaraj Dr. Kallol Mondal Dr. Santanu Misra
(Member) (Member) (Member) (Member)
Dr. Aditya Desa Dr. Debopam Das Dr. Debopam Das Dr. Shakti Gupta
(Member) (Member) (Member) (Member)
Mr. Ayush Pathak Mr. Kunal Kapila
(Member) (Member)
Annexure-I: HEC Members of Hall 2: Karan Kashyap (160321), Tejas Gupta (160747), Kashish Thakran (160326), Abhishek Gupta (160028), Abhinav Kumar (160018), Utkarsh Sagar (160759), Umang Garg (160754), Abhinav Arora (160016), Rohan Sakeri (160580), Sameer Banchhor (160615), Nishant Arya (160457).
List of students appeared in the ragging complaints: Abhinav Kumar (160018), Aman Gupta (160087), Akash Yadav (160071), Bhupesh Kumawat (160201), Devendra Kolhe (160232), Sumit Kumar Mahla (160719), Supreet Agrawal (160722), Umang Garg (160754), Vipul Kohli (160795), Anurag Chanani (160138), Sachin Angural (160597), Richeek Awasthi (160566), Shivam Kant (160653), Kashish Thakran (160326), Nishant Arya (160457)."
It appears that the Senate did not approve the recommendations made because they were made without affording opportunity of hearing to the alleged offenders and, therefore, in its 500th Senate Meeting, held on 21st September, 2017, the Senate, on the recommendations of S-SAC, resolved as follows:-
"Resolution of Senate:
The above agenda was discussed in the Senate meeting at length and after considering the SSAC recommendations, it was resolved that:
1. All HEC student members of the Hall of Residence-II and all the senior students (names provided in Annexure 1 of the agenda) whose names were received in regard to the ragging incident in Hall 2 should be immediately suspended from their academic programmes until further orders. They should be asked to leave the campus immediately.
2. (a) The alleged offenders should be given an opportunity to explain their position in connection with the action proposed by the same SSAC in its recommendation (1) When called to the IITK campus for hearing, they should be escorted in the campus by authorized IITK personnel.
(b) The SSAC should give its final recommendations, after the alleged offenders have been given hearing, and finalize its recommendations by October 09, 2017. Should the final recommendations of the SSAC remain unchanged, the Chairman, Senate, is authorized to approve the recommendation on action against any of the alleged offenders is altered, the same be brought to the consideration of the Senate for final approval.
3. DOSA will apprise the complainants and their parents of the disciplinary action taken by the Institute against the offenders. If they are not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken and if they desire and submit written request, the institute will lodge an FIR against the offenders.
4. The identity of the complainant should not be revealed.
5. In reference to recommendation 3 of the SSAC, the Senate authorized the Director, IIT Kanpur to initiate appropriate action against Mr. Nikhil Kurele and his friends present in his room taking into consideration of recommendations of the SSAC against them.
6 All UG Counselling Service student guides and the UG Counselling Service Coordinators to be awarded Level 1 punishment with the exception that they will not be debarred from receiving Institute/Convocation prizes and other awards in future. They will be issued a letter of reprimand and asked to submit a letter of apology.
7. The President Student Gymkhana, Mr. Rutuj Jugade, to be awarded Level 6 punishment barring him from: (I) contesting any student elections; (ii) holding any executive post in Hall of Resident/Gymkhana; (iii) representing IITK in any event.
It was decided that the Chairman, Senate would approve the action on this particular agenda and advise DOSA and DOAA to implement the action with immediate effect. Since the discussion of all the agenda items could not be taken up in the Senate meeting held on 21/09/2017, an adjourned meeting was proposed after the Mid-Semester recess where alongwith unfinished agenda items further discussion on this item can be taken up."
On 08.10.2017, the S-SAC submitted yet another recommendation in respect of 16 students including the petitioners. The recommendation dated 08th October, 2017 submitted by the S-SAC, is extracted and reproduced herein below:-
"Report of the Senate Students' Affairs Committee on the basis of its 2017-18 (Special meeting). The special meeting was held on 08 October 2017.
Members: Dr. P. Shunmugaraj (Chairman), Dr. Santanu Misra, Dr. Mohua Banerjee, Dr. Kallol Mondal, Dr. Debopam Das, Dr. Amitabh Bandyopadhyay, Dr. Shakti Gupta, Mr. Kunal Kapila, Mr. Aditya Desai and Mr. Ayush Pathak. Mr. Aditya Desai could not attend the meeting.
The Meeting was held at the conference room of DOSA office. The meeting started at 9.00 A.M. and ended at 10 P.M. The committee first noted the following observations:
While considering the recommendations of the SSAC on the ragging incidents that happened in Hall-II, the Senate, in its 500th (2017-18/1st meeting held on 21st September, 2017, decided to suspend 22 students till further order. The Senate instructed that the said students should be given an opportunity to explain their position in connection with the complaints by the same SSAC. Further, it was decided in the Senate that if the final recommendations of the SSAC remain unchanged, the Chairman Senate, is authorized to approve the recommendations. If the recommendation of any of the alleged offenders is/are altered, the same should be brought to the consideration of the Senate for the final approval. The following documents were available to all the members:
1. Summary (titled Summary I) of the ragging incident that happened at Hall 2 between 19 August 2017 night and 20 August 2017 morning.
2. Report of the SSAC meeting held on 02 September 2017.
3. IIT Kanpur office order issued on June 21, 2007 regarding ragging.
4. A copy of e-mail sent to all the students on July, 22, 2017 regarding anti-ragging.
5. A copy of "What constitute Ragging" posted on institute website.
6. Typed version of the complaints of the 11 students, without revealing their identities.
The above documents are enclosed with this report.
The copies of the following documents were also available in the meeting:
1. Supreme Court judgment (University of Kerala VS Council, Principals of Colleges in Kerala (Principals' council) 2007.
2. Dr. R.K. Raghavan committee report.
The following points were noted by the committee from the above documents:
1. The punishment to be meted out has to be exemplary and justifiably harsh to act as deterrent against recurrence of such incidents.
2. It also suggested collective punishment if a perpetrator and or abettor could not be identified, with even onlookers or victims to be penalized for not reporting incidents of ragging.
3. Every single incident of ragging where the victim or his parent/ guardian or Head of institution is not satisfied with the institutional arrangement for action, a first information report must be filed without exception by the authorities with the local police authorities. Any failure on the part of the institutional authority or negligence or deliberate delay in lodging the FIR with the local police shall be construed to be an act of culpable negligence on the part of the institutional authority. If any victim of his parent/guardian of ragging intends to file FIR directly with the police, that will not absolve the institutional authority from the requirement of filing the FIR.
All suspended 22 students appeared, one after another, before the Committee.
Each student was given the summary (Summary II, enclosed with the report) of the ragging incident and has been asked the following questions:
1. Whereabouts of the student on 19th August 2017 night in Hall 2?
2. The extent of his and other students (if any) involvement in the ragging.
3. His position in connection with the complaint.
4. Anything he wanted to say to the committee with respect to the ragging incident.
Outcome of the hearing: The committee heard the statements of all the accused. The following transpired from the statements given by the accused during the hearing:
1. The extent of the involvement of each accused and the same of the co-accused.
2. Some accused indicated that either HEC student members organised this Baap-wing event (A Ragging Event) or at least they were aware that the incident would happen on 19th night.
3. On 20th August 2017 all HEC members were aware of the incident.
4. DOSA along with ADSA, two of the Hall 2 wardens, President of Student Gymkhana, Chairperson of the Student Senate met the Hall 2 HEC student members in Hall on 20th night. This meeting was held to enquire about the incident, based on an anonymous complaint. None of the HEC members revealed anything. Further, they concealed the entire matter.
As three of the accused HEC student members claimed that they were not present in the hostel for most of the part of the night of the incident, the committee examined the CCTV footage of GATE III of the academic area of the institute.
After hearing all the accused, the committee discussed the matter at length. Based on the outcome of hearing, which is outlined above, the committee recommended the following:
The following 16 students should be terminated from their academic programme immediately, i.e. the previous decision of the SSAC stands:
1. Karan Kashyap (160321); 2. Kashish Thakran (160326); 3. Abhinav Kumar (160018); 4. Umang Garg (160754); 5. Abhinav Arora (160016); 6. Sameer Banchhor (160615); 7. Nishant Arora (160457); 8. Akash Yadav (160071); 9. Bhupesh Kumawat (160201); 10. Devendra Kolhe (160232); 11. Sumit Kumar Mahla (160719); 12. Supreet Agrawal (160722); 13. Anurag Chanani; 14. Sachin Anugral (160566); 15. Richeek Awasthi (160566); 16. Shivam Kant (160653).
The following 6 students should be suspended for two semesters (2017-2018 I and II semesters) from their academic programs:
1. Tejas Gupta (16747); 2. Abhishek Gupta (160028); 3. Aman Gupta 2. (160087); 4. Vipul Kohli (160795); 5. Rohan Sakeri (160580); 6. Utkarsh Sagar (160759) During the deliberations the accused students added a number of new names who also appeared to deeply involved in the ragging Hall 2. The SSAC requests the Senate to take appropriate action on this. The list of the students who were named by the accused is with the DOSA.
Signed: 1..............; 2.....................; 3...............; 4...................;
5.....................; 6......................; 7.................; 8......................"
On the above report, the Senate met on 09.10.2017 and took a decision. The minutes of the meeting of the Senate and the resolution passed by the Senate on 09.10.2017, is reproduced herein below:-
"Minutes of the adjourned meeting held on 09/10/2017.
As resolved on the agenda on September 21, 2017 under para 2, the opportunity of personal hearing was provided to all the accused students by the same SSAC Committee on 08/10/2017 and after hearing all the details, SSAC vide its letter dated 09/10/2017 submitted its recommendations which were again placed in adjourned meeting of the Senate on October 09, 2017. After detailed discussion and considering the earlier & recent recommendations of SSAC, Senate finally resolved on the issue that:
Resolution of Senate:
The Senate noted that the opportunity was given to all alleged offenders to explain their position to SSAC on the incident that happened in Hall-2, IIT Kanpur.
1. 16 student members of the Hall of Residence II i.e. Karan Kashyap (160321), Kashish Thakran (160326), Abhinav Kumar (160018), Umang Garg (160754), Abhinav Arora (160016), Sameer Banchhor (160615), Nishant Arya (160457), Akash Yadav (160071), Bhupesh Kumawat (160201), Devendra Kolhe (160232), Sumit Kumar Mahla (160719), Supreet Agrawal (160722), Anurag Chanani (160138), Sachin Angural (160597), Richeek Awasthi (160566), Shivam Kant (160653) should be immediately suspended for 3 years (Six semesters) from their academic program.
2. 06 students i.e. Tejas Gupta (160747), Abhishek Gupta (160028), Aman Gupta (160087), Vipul Kohli (160795), Rohan Sakeri (160580), Utkarsh Sagar (160759) should be immediately suspended for 1 year (two semesters).
3. The above stated students in Point 1 and 2 will not be permitted to reside inside the campus during their suspension period. The Senate shall not entertain any appeal from above 22 students at least for a period of one year.
4. The identity of all the complainants should be protected at all costs.
5. DOSA will apprise the complainants and their parents of the disciplinary action taken by the Institute against the offenders. If the students or their parents are not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken and if they desire to file an FIR, the Institute shall provide all possible assistance for filing FIRs.
6. The Senate authorized the Director, IIT Kanpur to initiate appropriate action against Mr. Nikhil Kurele and his friends present in his room taking into consideration the recommendations of the SSAC against them.
7. All UG Counselling Service student guides and the UG Counselling Service Coordinators to be awarded Level 1 punishment with the exception that they will not be debarred from receiving Institute/Convocation prizes and other awards in future. They will be issued a letter of reprimand and asked to submit a letter of apology.
8. The President Student Gymkhana, Mr. Rutuj Jugade, to be awarded Level 6 punishment barring him from: (I) contesting any student election; (ii) holding any executive post in Hall of Residence/Gymkhana; (iii) representing IITK in any event.
Twelve (12) Senators expressed their dissent on the reduction of quantum of punishment to 16 students from what was originally recommended by the SSAC on the ground that the final punishment awarded by the Senate was not commensurate with the seriousness of the misdemeanor."
The resolution of the Senate dated 09.10.2017 was thereafter placed before the Anti Ragging Committee, which approved the same on 26.10.2017 and resolved to implement the decision taken by the Senate. The resolution of Anti Ragging Committee dated 26.10.2017 is reproduced herein below:-
"Report on the ragging incidents that happened at IIT Kanpur during July-August, 2017 and the actions taken by the institute Complaints:
Dean of Students Affairs (DoSA), IIT Kanpur received complaints that ragging incidents happened in Hall 2 of IIT Kanpur and some other places in the campus. Following complaints were given in the statements: i. Second year students including the HEC members of Hall of Residence (Hall 2) were involved in ragging the first year students of Hall 2. The incident occurred during the early hours of 20th August, 2017, between 00:30 hrs-6:00 hrs. Several humiliating tasks were given to the first year students by the seniors to perform. ii. In the treasure hunt event which took place on the night of 14-15th August, 2017, some 1st year students were sent to Hall 1, while some others were sent to a room in SBRA, where an alumnus was staying.
(a) The alumnus along with his friends were involved in ragging the first year students.
(b) In Hall 1, the President, Students Gymkhana had told some first year students that if they complain to the DoSA, then the DoSA would call only him and he would deny the incident.
iii. During the orientation programme, the student guides and student coordinators of the Counselling Service forced the freshers to do some inappropriate acts.
The actions taken by the Institute:
The complaints were taken to the Senate Student's Advisory Committee (SSAC) which consists of seven faculty members and four students. The committee first met on 02nd September, 2017 and identified President, Students Gymkhana, the alumnus and his friends who were present in his room on the night of 14-15th August and the 22 accused students of Hall 2. The committee met again on 08th October, 2017 and the 22 accused students of Hall 2, each appeared before the committee to explain their position with respect to the ragging incident. The committee discussed the matter at length on both the days and submitted its recommendation to the Chairman, Academic Senate. The Academic Senate, which is the highest authority on all academic including student discipline related matters, discussed the matter on 21st September, 2017 and 09th October, 2017 at length after considering the SSAC recommendations. The Senate noted that the opportunity was given to all alleged offenders to explain their position to SSAC, regarding the incident that happened in Hall-2, IIT Kanpur. The Senate took the following decisions:
1. 16 students members of Hall 2 should be immediately suspended for 3 years (Six semesters) from their academic program.
2. 06 student members should be immediately suspended for 1 year (two semesters).
3. The above stated students in Points 1 and 2 will not be permitted to reside inside the campus during their suspension period. The Senate shall not entertain any appeal from the above 22 students for at least a period of one year.
4. The identity of all the complainants should be protected at all costs.
5. DOSA will apprise the complainants and their parents of the disciplinary action taken by the Institute against the offenders. If the students or their parents are not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken and if they desire to file an FIR, the Institute shall provide all possible assistance for filing the FIRs.
6. The Senate authorized the Director, IIT Kanpur to initiate appropriate action against the alumnus and his friends present in his room taking into consideration the recommendations of the SSAC against them.
7. All UG Counseling Service student guides and the UG Counselling Service Coordinators should be awarded Level 1 punishment with the exception that they will not be debarred from receiving Institute/Convocation prizes and other awards in future. They will be issued a letter of reprimand and asked to submit a letter of apology.
8. The then President Student Gymkhana, Mr. Rutuj Jugade, to be awarded Level 6 punishment barring him from: (I) contesting any student election; (ii) holding any executive post in Hall of Residence/Gymkhana; (iii) representing IITK in any event.
The decision taken by the Senate will be implemented by the institute at priority."
Out of the 16 students punished, as above, some of them filed writ petitions in this Court, the leading petition was Writ C No.51656 of 2017, which, along with other connected petitions, was disposed of by order dated 13.11.2017. The writ court in its judgment and order dated 13.11.2017 had noticed various submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as the Institute but did not record any finding in respect of the issues raised because the counsel for the Institute had suggested that there existed remedy of an appeal under Ordinance 9.10. The Court accordingly observed that remedy provided by the Ordinances cannot be denied and the students must get a chance of hearing before a higher body. The relevant directions issued by this court are extracted and reproduced herein below:-
"In view of the above, without interfering in the order impugned, the present writ petitions is being disposed of with the observations and directions as follows;-
1. The petitioners-students shall submit a notarised affidavit by tomorrow i.e. on 14.11.2017 deposing therein that during their stay inside the campus for undertaking the forthcoming examinations, they will not indulge in any kind of illegal activity. They will not meet or interact any fresher student during the said period even when they use the library or go to the examination Hall nor do they would indulge in any kind of activity that may create disharmony inside the campus of the institute and maintain discipline of the utmost level.
2. Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the petitioners-students are allowed to file appeal to the Senate under Ordinance 9.10 of the Ordinances of the Code of Conduct of the Students, before the Chairman, Senate within a period of one week from today alongwith certified copy of this order.
3. In case of filing of appeal(s), the Chairman, The Senate IIT, Kanpur shall place the same before the Senate alongwith entire records.
4. As assured by the learned counsel for the respondent-institute, on the instructions received by him, the meeting of the Senate with specific agenda to consider appeal(s) of the students be convened on or before 20.12.2017, so as to take an early decision in the matter.
5. The petitioners-students shall be provided personal hearing by the Senate on the date of meeting, the petitioners- students would be under obligation to co-operate and in case they or any of them fail(s) to appear, the meeting may not be adjourned and the Senate may proceed with the deliberations.
6. During the course of personal hearing, the complaints against the petitioners and their statements recorded in the meeting of SSAC dated 08.10.2017 be read out to them. The charges of their involvement in the ragging incidents of 19-20 August, 2017 be also narrated to them.
7. The version of the Warden of Hall-II and other members of Anti-Ragging Committee (Disciplinary Committee of the Institute) regarding the ragging incidents be also taken note of and be narrated to the students.
8. As the students have undertaken their course of study till the suspension order was passed, they are permitted to take up the third semester examinations commencing from 15.11.2017 provisionally subject to the final decision taken by the Senate in their appeal(s).
9. In order to balance the interest of students as well as the institute, it would be appropriate that the petitioners may be allowed to reside inside the campus of the institute at a different place from Hall of Residence-II be it another Hall of Residence or the Guest house of the institute or any other accommodation inside the campus of the institute so that they may avail library and other facilities to prepare for the examination.
10. The petitioners-students, on the other hand, would be under obligation to maintain their conduct and discipline to the utmost and shall abide by the undertaking given by them in the notary affidavit.
11. They shall not be allowed to meet or interact with fresher students during the period of their stay inside the campus, till examinations are over.
12. The permission to reside inside the campus has been granted to the petitioners-students only to facilitate them to undertake their IIIrd semester examination, provisionally. They shall leave the Campus immediately after the IIIrd semester examinations are over. Their result of IIIrd semester examination and to undertake further course of study i.e. IVth semester would be subject to the final decision taken by the Senate. The decision so taken by the Senate shall be communicated to the petitioners at the earliest, latest by end of December, 2017 (as assured by Sri Rohan Gupta learned counsel for the respondent-institute.) It is made clear that the permission granted to the petitioner to enter the campus and to undertake examination is provisional subject to furnishing of an undertaking in the notarized affidavit to be submitted before the Director of the institute. In case, the decision of the Senate goes against the petitioners, they shall be at liberty to challenge the same by availing such remedy as may be advised. A copy of the order be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on the payment of usual charges. Disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied) It appears that the institute filed a clarification application numbered 380767 of 2017 in the aforesaid petition which came to be disposed of by order dated 21.11.2017, which is reproduced herein below:-
"Civil Misc. Clarification Application No.380767 of 2017 Heard Sri Rohan Gupta learned counsel for the respondent-institute and Sri Pratik Chandra learned counsel for the petitioners-students. The clarification application has been filed on behalf of the respondent-institute in view of the letter dated 15.11.2017 of the Senate Co-ordinater and Secretary, Senate seeking clarification as to whether the Senate can process the appeal filed by the students (including their personal hearing) through a Committee as per the practice followed by the Senate for disposing of the appeals. It is sought to be submitted therein that the recommendation of said Committee alongwith relevant documents will be considered by the Senate for final decision of the appeals. On a query made by the Court regarding constitution of such Committee, Sri Rohan Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent-institute has not been able to place any statutory provision except ordinance 9.10 which provides that the Senate can evolve its own procedure for the purpose of disposal of appeals. As on date, no such procedure has been notified by the Senate but as per the practice prevailing in the institute, the appeals are being examined by a Committee constituted by Senate and the recommendation of the said Committee are placed before the Senate for final deliberations on the merits of the appeals. In the instant case, the Standing Committee namely the Senate Students Affair Committee (S.S.A.C) had considered the matter and the order of suspension had been passed on the recommendation of the said Committee. In order to give one chance to these students to avail the remedy of statutory appeal, the directions have been issued in the judgement and order dated 13.11.2017 for allowing them to file appeal before the Chairman, Senate who shall place it before the Senate for deliberations and disposal thereof. Simultaneously, it was also directed that these students will be provided personal hearing by the Senate on the date of meeting which would be duly intimated to them. Considering the above noted facts, only this much is clarified that a Committee may be constituted by the Senate for the purpose of granting personal hearing to the students on a date to be fixed by the said Committee. The constitution of the said Committee would be such which would not include the members including Chairman of Senate Students Affair Committee (S.S.A.C). The statements of the students recorded during the course of hearing shall be reduced in writing and be placed before the Senate alongwith other relevant records strictly in conformity with the directions given in the judgement and order dated 13.11.2017 and the final decision on the appeals filed by the petitioners-students shall be taken by the Senate after due deliberations. The above method evolved for disposal of appeals of the petitioners-students shall not be treated as precedent in future. The clarification application is disposed of, accordingly."
(Emphasis supplied) The benefit of the directions issued by this Court, as noticed above, were provided by the Institute not only to those students who had petitioned this Court but also to those who were affected by the order of the Senate dated 09.10.2017.
To comply with the directions of this Court, the Institute constituted a Committee for hearing the appeals of the students in the ragging case. It is claimed by the Institute that the appellants were provided personal hearing by the said Committee. The report of the Committee dated December 4, 2017 is reproduced herein below:-
AP-2 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Indian Institue of Technology Kanpur December 4, 2017 Report of the Committee for Hearing the Appeals of Students in the Ragging Case Following the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, dated November 21, 2017, the Chairman, Senate, IIT Kanpur constituted a committee to give personal hearing to the twenty two students suspended by a decision of the Senate in its 500th meeting held on September 21, 2017 and October 9, 2017 (Annexure 1). The committee had the following members:
(1) Dr. Ajai Jain, CSE, Chairperson (2) Dr. Neeraj Misra, DOAA, Member (3) Dr. Achla M. Raina, HSS, Member (4) Dr. M.K. Harbola, Physics, Member (5) Dr. Rajiv Shekhar, MSE, Member On the request of the students communicated by the Chairman, Senate, the committee agreed to have one student representative present during the hearing.
The committee held several preliminary meetings on November 23, 26 and 29, 2017 to study the Senate decision, along with all relevant documents (Annexure 5), observations and directives of the Hon'ble High Court (Annexure 6), and the appeals filed by the students (Annexure 4). During these meetings, the committee also formalized the detailed procedure to be followed during the hearings. The committee fixed November 30, 2017 as the date of hearing at the conference room of PBCEC, Visitors' Hostel, IIT Kanpur and requested the DOSA to inform the appellants about it. The DOSA was also requested to provide to each student a copy of the statement that they had submitted to the S-SAC during its investigations.
The committee met S-SAC on November 24, 2017 to go through the procedure followed by the S-SAC for its investigations.
Starting at 9:30 am on November 30, 2017, the appellants appeared before the committee one-by-one. The following process was adopted during the personal hearing of the appeals.
(i) The appellants were shown the complaints (Annexure 2) in which they had been named.
(ii) The summary of their own statements recorded in the meeting of the S-SAC (Annexure 3) were read out to them.
(iii) The appellants were asked to verify that they had received a copy of their own statements submitted to S-SAC in the course of investigations.
(iv) A summary of their appeals was narrated to them and they were asked if all the points in their appeal had been covered in the summary.
(v) The committee asked the appellants whether they wished to provide any additional information in support of their written appeal and gave them a personal hearing in the presence of the student representative.
AP-3 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 The committee held a meeting with all the three wardens of Hall-II on December 2, 2017, and noted the details provided by them about the incident. The committee met on December 4, 2017 to finalize its report.
The report of the committee is presented in the form of 22 Summary Sheets, one for each appellant. A Summary Table of the information relevant to each case is also provided.
Manoj Harbola Rajeev Shekhar Neeraj Misra Achla M. Raina Ajai Jain List of Annexures 1) Office Order 2) Complaints 3) Statements submitted to S-SAC by the Students 4) Appeals 5) Agenda and Minutes of the 500the Meeting of the Senate 6) Court Orders Additional Annexures 1) Appeals of the Parents"
The Committee prepared summary sheet of the proceedings in respect of each of the students involved/ implicated and forwarded the same to the Senate for taking decision. The summary sheet prepared and supplied by the Committee concerning the petitioners, in this bunch of writ petitions, are extracted and reproduced herein below:-
(a) Summary sheet of Abhinav Kumar (petitioner in Writ C No. 584 of 2018):-
AP-6 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
3) Abhinav Kumar (160018-G277) HEC Member Named in complaint numbers 2, 9, 11 Named in the statement by 7 batch mates Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Came back from Music Club around 2:00 am. After reaching the wing, he was told about the Baap Wing. Admits to being in the events but says he was not leading. Appeal Summary:
a) Is not part of any ragging event that took place 'anywhere else'.
b) Incidents of August 14-15 have been dragged into the Hall 2 incident of August 19-20, 2017; he is unaware of the incident of Treasure Hunt.
c) He did not understand the gravity of the situation as no charges were given.
d) He was present in the Music Club until 2:00 am practicing for Antaragni.
e) Reached his wing around 2:30am, ate at the canteen, and was going to his room when he witnessed the interaction between the freshman and seniors.
f) No physical ragging or sexual harassment occurred neither was anyone subjected to verbal abuse.
g) Went to sleep around 4:15 am.
h) The incidents were not worse than what happened to him during the last year's Quad Sessions'.
i) Finds the Senate logic faculty because if the Counselling core team member present during the incident did not find anything wrong with the goings on then nothing went wrong.
j) Realizes that it was his duty as a member of the HEC to stop the activities and he failed to do so.
k) 'Baap Wing' has been happening for many years.
l) Is not involved in any other incident.
m) Offers his apology and asks the Senate to consider giving him one more chance.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) HEC member
(ii) Was in music club till 2 AM. On returning to his wing, he found out that a Baap Wing was being organised. This was done because freshers wanted it.
(iii) Was present in the interaction session.
(iv) No abusive language was used.
(v) Pornography was shown in freshers after they requested for it.
(vi) He heard that buzzer round actually happened in other wings and it was done by pinching.
(vii) Complaint is exaggerated.
(viii) Freshers from the wing B-bottom have given a statement to the Director that nothing objectionable happened during the interaction."
(b) Summary sheet of Sachin Angural (petitioner no.2 in Writ C No. 584 of 2018):-
AP-18 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
14) Sachin Angural (160597-G177) Named in complaint Nos. 4, 6 Named in the statement by 3 batch mates Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Received a call from Aditya Bajpai in CC at 1:39 am. Was aware that Baap Wing was going to take place. Tried to calm a few Y17 students who were uncomfortable with abusive words. Saw students taken to basketball court for 'fashion show'. Left the court at 4:15 am. Names Aditya Bajpai, Shivam Kant, Sumit Mahla, Richeek Awasthi as being present at some time or the other. Appeal Summary:
a) Was at the incident site on the directions of Aditya Bajpai of Counselling Service to look out for the excessess committed during the incident.
b) Tried to help as many juniors as he could.
c) Apologizes for not being able to stop things right at that moment and regrets not making an effort either.
d) Could not inform the authorities because of peer pressure.
e) But has given all the details to DOSA when called upon to do so.
f) Offers an unconditional apology.
g) In case he is found to be involved, he will accept the institute decision.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) He was near CCD with one of his counselees when the counselee received a call asking him to come for Baap Wing.
(ii) Came to his room at 2:00 AM after receiving a call from a core team member of the Counselling Service to make sure that no one feels uncomfortable.
(iii) Was there at the interaction session on being told to do so by the core team member of Counselling Service.
(iv) He wrote the complaint in presence of DOSA, warden-in-charge Hall II, and Chairman, CSEC. While writing his complaint, he felt scared because he was told that if the matter is reported to the police, he may get a 7 year jail term and therefore he wrote certain things he did not know about.
(v) Did not know that freshers were asked to hold other freshers' private parts or that the HEC was involved but wrote about these in his complaint on being informed."
(c) Summary sheet of Akash Yadav (petitioner no.3 in Writ C No. 584 of 2018):-
AP-12 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
8) Akash Yadav (160071-G274) Named in complaint numbers 2, 9 Named in the statement by 5 batch mates Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Knew that Baap Wing was going to happen and was waiting for it when he got a call from sister. Went outside the wing to take the call since there was too much noise in the wing around 1:30am. On his return, he found the Y17 students without tee-shirts. Students put on their shirts after a CS office bearer reached this wing and instructed them to do that. There was a long interaction session with questions about hobbies. This was followed by music and dance and pornography (he stayed out of the room). They went to the basket ball court since water cooler of the wing was leaking. There students were asked to sit in a big circle and to use the next student as buzzer by 'pinching' him. They were fully clothed. There were no vulgar questions asked or vulgar acts performed. The SIS guard stood about 20-30 meters away. Later on, all went to the MT Section for a treat. Appeal Summary:
a) Is an obedient and intelligent student, which reflects in his past academic achievements.
b) Has been brought up with high moral values.
c) Is always helpful to the juniors.
d) Did not indulge in any offensive act on the Treasure Hunt night.
e) Did not make anyone feel uncomfortable during the Hall 2 incident.
f) Apologizes for the said involvement, assures everyone that he will not be involved in any acts of this kind in future.
g) There was no physical or sexual harassment in his presence.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) He was requested by the freshers to organise the Baap Wing but he ignored their request.
(ii) At that time, he did not know whether the Baap Wing was being organized or not. Came to know about it when fresheres started gathering in his wing.
(iii) SGs and HEC members knew about the Baap Wing being organized.
(iv) Was present during the buzzer round.
(v) There was no pornography or harassment.
(vi) Did not see freshers with their shirts taken off.
(vii) The complaint is exaggerated.
(viii) While writing his statement after meeting the S-SAC, he was told what others have revealed to the committee and that influenced his statement.
(ix) He now realises that he should have stopped the activities that were given on."
(d) Summary sheet of Devendra Kolhe (petitioner no.4 in Writ C No. 584 of 2018):-
AP-14 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
10) Devendra Kolhe (160232-G277) Named in complaint no. 9 Named in the statement by 5 batchmates Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Accepts his presence but denies active participation. Acknowledges buzzer round with pinching. Denies that students had been asked to undress. Appeal Summary:
a) Has never indulged in any illegal activity.
b) His father is a farmer who works very hard to provide him every facility.
c) No sexual harassment took place in his wing, no force was used.
d) Was not involved in any activity during the Treasure Hunt.
e) Is extremely sorry for what happened.
f) Was unaware that these acts can be considered ragging because he was under the impression that such things are a part of the institute culture and everyone accepts them.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) Was present during the introduction, dance and buzzer round.
(ii) Buzzer round was held by pinching or a pat on the back.
(iii) Freshers were wearing their shirts and he did not see them taking them off.
(iv) Because the S-SAC said that students were asked to take off their shirts, he wrote this in his statement.
(v) No fresher was uncomfortable during the session."
(e) Summary sheet of Sumit Kumar Mahla (petitioner no.5 in Writ C No. 584 of 2018):-
AP-15 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
11) Sumit Kumar Mahla (160719-G278) Named in complaint numbers 2, 9 Named in the statement by 8 batchmates Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Baap Wing started at 1:30am with formal introduction (not present). It was followed by pornography (not compulsory). Took one Y17 student who seemed uncomfortable to his room for normal talk. When he returned, students were going to basketball court for buzzer round (denies involvement). After talking to some Y17 students came back to his wing where some Y17 students were doing Phantom on the direction of Umang and Abhinav. Appeal Summary:
a) The Treasure Hunt and Hall-2 incidents are being mixed up.
b) Has zero involvement in the Treasure Hunt.
c) Did not witness any abusive language or physical/sexual harassment during 'Baap Wing'.
d) Never knew that these sorts of activities were 'ragging' as he had always been told that this is the culture and tradition of IIT Kanpur which even our Wardens and Professors know.
e) Realizes that it was his mistake not to file a complaint about the incident.
f) Has always been supportive of the Y17 students and has always helped them in every way.
g) Apologizes for the wrongs he might have committed.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) Baap Wing was requested by the freshers and started at 1:30 AM with introduction followed by dance up to 3:00 AM.
(ii) Buzzer round was held at the basketball court and question-answer went on up to 4:30 AM.
(iii) No harassment of freshers took place."
(f) Summary sheet of Umang Garg (petitioner no.6 in Writ C No. 584 of 2018):-
AP-8 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
4) Umang Garg (160754-G278) Named in complaint nos. 2, 9, 11 Named in the statement by 8 batchmates Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Was in his room up to 1:30 am. Saw the students introducing themselves. Came back from canteen at 2:15 am. Saw the students dancing. Saw the buzzer round taking place in the badminton court but claims that students were fully clothed and were told to 'pinch'. Went back to his room and when he came out, he saw the fashion show. Then, he went to MT Session for refreshment. Appeal Summary:
a) Did not verbally or physically abuse any of his juniors.
b) No one was harassed or forced to anything; no one was asked to strip, physically thrashed or even touched by him.
c) As a member of the HEC, he was asking students to go back to their room if they wished to.
d) He realizes now that the late night interactions are wrong and should not be taking place.
e) Will not indulge in any act of indiscipline in future.
f) Will try to become a better person so that his parents and his institute are proud of him.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) HEC member
(ii) He was present during the interaction session that included buzzer round, dancing and abusive language.
(iii) Those who felt uncomfortable were allowed to leave.
(iv) The buzzer round involved a pat on the back and nothing else.
(v) During the incident, he did not realise seriousness was what was going on but now feels that he should have stopped it."
(g) Summary sheet of Shivam Kant (petitioner in Writ C No. 1419 of 2018):-
AP-20 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
16) Shivam Kant (160653-G173) Named in complaint no. 4 Named in the statement by 1 batch-mate Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Came back from photography club workshop about 2:45 am. Interacted with students in Room 171 and introduced himself to them. Went to 177 and introduced himself. Interacted with Y16 students including his 'bed student'. Went to basket ball court for 10 minutes (doesn't say what happened there except that he talked to Anurag). Appeal Summary:
a) Has not been informed about the incidents/activities alleged against him during the incident.
b) In the absence of such clarity, it is not possible for anyone to even start the process of judging his conduct.
c) The suspension orders are against the SSAC Procedures and Guidelines (9), as he was not allowed to respond to the complaint.
d) Came to know on September 19 that his name had appeared in a ragging case.
e) Is aware of the menace of ragging and treats it as a rights violation.
f) Requests that the suspension order be quashed.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) He was not present in the interaction session.
(ii) Did go to Room 171 just to introduce himself as a member of photography club and tell the freshers about activities of the club. Feels that his name appears in the complaints because of this.
(iii) Came to know later that all the activities mentioned in different complaints did take place in G-Mid. Therefore his name may have gotten confused with that of Shivam Mandloi who is a resident of G-Mid.
(iv) Sachin Anugral had told him that he had asked Ali to measure the length of the corridor with a coin.
(v) He went towards the court and was conversing with Anurag Chanani there. However, he did not go into the court"
(h) Summary sheet of Kashish Thakran (petitioner in Writ C No. 2903 of 2018):-
AP-5 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
2) Kashish Thakran (160326-G371) HEC Member Named in complaint nos. 10, 11 Named in the statement by 1 batch mate Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Talks about introduction, dance, music, phantom round (tried to stop), students from his wing asked juniors to do 'formidable tasks' which he tried to stop. Went to M.T Session. Appeal Summary:
a) Has never been involved to any ragging activity during his stay in IIT Kanpur.
b) Was appointed as a Student Guide by the Counseling Service, voted to the office of Accounts Secretary in Hall 2.
c) Comes from a reputed family.
d) Was in his room on the night of August 19-20, 2017, heard some noise and went out to see what was happening; returned to his room on finding that an interaction was on.
e) Some juniors knocked at his door and told him that they were being asked to perform acts they did not particularly like, went out and told his batch mates to stop.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) HEC member and a member of Anti-Ragging Squad.
(ii) Heard noises outside his room and saw that some freshers of B-mid were present there and found out that they had been called there for Baap Wing.
(iii) Seniors and Juniors were all dancing.
(iv) He was present in the session where a ramp-walk was performed.
(v) He is not aware of phantom round or any other objectionable task.
(vi) Some juniors came to him and told him that they were being asked to perform Phantom.
(vii) HEC President was aware that the Baap Wingh was going on."
(i) Summary sheet of Abhinav Arora (petitioner in Writ C No. 2554 of 2018):-
AP-9 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary Sheet
5) Abhinav Arora (160016-G375) HEC Member Not named in any complaint or statement Summary of the written statement given to SSAC:
Was present till 3:00-4:00 am during introduction and mini games. Was woken up by Nishant at 5:30 am and went to the MT Section. Appeal Summary:
a) Strongly condemns any acts of ragging or otherwise, which have reportedly happened in Hall 2.
b) Has not been involved in any of the activities, strongly condemns any demeaning activities in the name of senior-junior interaction.
c) Is a member of the HEC (Science and Technology Secretary)
d) Was working on Takneek papers when he heard a noise, came out to find people dancing, singing etc., went back and slept.
e) Was not shown any complaints against him, no specific charges were mentioned, neither was he given an opportunity to answer the charges, and present his version of the facts.
f) The suspension will leave an irreversible effect on his future prospects.
Summary of the hearing on November 30, 2017
(i) HEC member
(ii) Introduction started at 1-1:30 am; was present up to 3:00-4-00 am.
(iii) Music and dance took place but freshers were standing there of their own will.
(iv) Denied that buzzer round took place.
(v) No fresher was forced into doing things."
After preparing the summary sheets, as above, a table summarizing the data collected in the proceedings by the Committee was prepared and forwarded to the Senate for its decision along with summary of discussion with the Wardens of Hall-II. The summary table prepared by the Committee and forwarded to the Senate, which has been appended at page 98 to 108 of the counter-affidavit, is extracted and reproduced herein below:-
AP-27 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Name, Roll Number and Residence of the Appellant Whether HEC Member or not Current Status Number of Complaints by First Year students in which the Appellant is named Number of Complaints by other Students in which the Appellant is named Number of Statements given to S-SAC by Batch Mates in which the Appellant is Named Involvement as per Complaints/Statements by other Students Involvement as per Appellant's own Statement Involvement as per Appeal Involvement as per Hearing Karan Kashyap 160321 A-105 President HEC 3 year suspension 0 1 1(in a reference to all HEC members including the Hall President) 0 Saw him involved in the events of Saturday night.
Was with students till 2:30 am (chit-chatting) Denies involvement on the ground that no first yearite has mentioned his name---"mere presence does not establish guilt."
Was there in the beginning of the interaction; tried his best to address a complaint by a junior.
Kashish Thakran 160326 A-371 Yes 3 year suspension 1 1 1 Was present during the activities Leading during some activities.
Present during introduction. Was informed by junior about phantom round and other 'formidable tasks' and tried to stop them.
Was in his room, heard some noise and went out to see what was going on. When he found that an interaction session was on, he returned to his room.
Was present during the ramp-walk, Some juniors came to him and told him that they were being asked to perform Phantom.
AP-28 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Abhinav Kumar 160018 G-277 Yes 3 year suspension 2 1 7 Present during all activities Leading during some activities.
Present but was not leading.
Was at Music Club, reached the Hall at 2:30am, witnessed the interaction, no physical ragging, went to sleep around 4:15 am.
Was present at the interaction session, no abusive language was used. Pornograrphic clips were shown on freshers' request.
Umang Garg 160754 G-278 Yes 3 year suspension 2 1 8 Present during all activities. Leading during some activities.
Saw students introducing and dancing, saw fashion show, buzzer round with fully clothed students (only pinching).
Did not physically or verbally abuse or harass anyone., no one was forced to do things.
Was present during the interaction that included dancing, abusive language and buzzer round.
Abhinav Arora 160016 G-375 Yes 3 year suspension 0 0 0 None Present till 3-4 am during interaction.
Was not involved, was working on Takneek when he heard the noise and came out to find people singing and dancing, went back to his room and slept.
Was standing there between 1:30am and 3:00 am, did not see the buzzer round taking place.
AP-29 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Sameer Banchhor 160615 A-103 Yes 3 year suspension 0 0 0 None Present till 2:15-2:30 am during interaction.
Not involved in any of the events, does not know what the allegations against him are.
Was sleeping up to 1:45 am, stood at the interaction session up to 2:30am, no pornography, buzzer or phantom rounds took place.
Nishant Arya 160457 G-372 Yes 3 year suspension 0 1 (by name by 3rd year student) 1 Saw him involved in the events of Saturday night.
Saw water throwing. Talked to juniors about institute related topics.
Spent time with juniors on the night of November 19-20 talking about life and playing music.
Was present during 1:00-4:00 am, freshers came to his room of their own choice.
Akash Yadav 160071 G-274 No 3 year suspension 2 0 5 Present during all activities Saw students without shirt, long interaction session, music dance. Was in buzzer round with fully clothed students (only pinching) No physical or sexual harassment during his presence, did not make anyone uncomfortable.
No pornography or sexual harassment, was present during the buzzer round.
AP-30 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Bhupesh Kumavat 160201 xxxx No 3 year suspension 1 0 5 Present during all activities Was present during activities including Buzzer round and Phantom round but only students who were comfortable.
Baap Wing started around 1:30 am. Did not seek any physical or sexual harassment during the event.
Pornographic clips were shown but not enacted, freshers seemed to enjoy the Phantom round.
Devendra Kolhe 160232 G-277 No 3 year suspension 1 0 5 Present during all activities Accepts his presence but denies active participation. Acknowledges buzzer round with pinching. Denies undressing of any student.
No force was used, was unaware that the sessions were ragging as everyone spoke of them as part of the IIT K tradition.
Was present during the introduction, dance and buzzer round., freshers were not uncomfortable.
Sumit Kumar Mahla 160719 G-278 No 3 year suspension 2 0 8 Present during all activities Accepts that Baap Wing happened and pornography was shown. Present during Buzzer round (denies involvement).
Did not witness any physical or sexual abuse during the interaction, did not know that this was ragging as everyone said theses interactions were a part of IIT K culture.
Baap Wing was requested by the freshers, started at 1:30am and introduction and dance continued up to 3:00 am, the buzzer round in the Basket Ball Court went on up to 4:30 am.
AP-31 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Supreet Agarwal 160722 G-276 No 3 year suspension 3 0 7 Present during all activities Accepts Baap Wing with porn. Present during Buzzer round (denies stripping). Phantom round was also optional.
Was present during the event to ensure that no one was thrashed or exploited.
Arranged the Baap Wing on the freshers' request but did not stay there all the time.
Anurag Chanani 160138 G-172 No 3 year suspension 1 0 3 Present during debate on obscene topic. Was present in/near basket ball court.
Acknowledges activities in badminton court and basketball court (normal interaction and dancing). Denies presence during any inappropriate activities such as phantom and buzzer.
Woke up at 12:30-1:00 am and saw a gathering outside his doorstep which eventually dispersed into two rooms. Nothing happened during his presence.
Was in room 171 for one hour and 177 for 45 minutes., the interaction was normal, the buzzer round took place in the Basket Ball court around 4:15 am. He did not ask any questions at the buzzer round.
AP-32 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Sachin Angural 160597 G-177 No (student Guide) 3 year suspension 2 0 3 Present during all activities Received a call from Aditya from Baap Wing and went to hostel at 1:39 am. Helped several students, Saw students taken to BB Court. Accept seeing Fashion show but denies being present during buzzer round. (In complaint number 3, he accepts phantom and buzzer rounds).
Was at the incident site on instructions from one of the CS core team members to ensure that no excesses took place, tried to help as many juniors as he could, couldn't inform the authorities due to peer pressure.
He wrote his complaint in the presence of DOSA, Warden in charge Hall 2 and Chairperson, CSEC. Wrote about Phantom and Buzzer rounds in the complaint under pressure.
Richeek Awasthi G-176 No 3 year suspension 2 0 1 Present during all the events.
Reached hall at 1:00 am. Was not involved in physically demeaning thing. Saw students debating on obscene topics.
Reached the Hall at 1:00 am, was asleep by 3:00 am. No one was asked to do anything physically demeaning during his presence.
He was at the interaction intermittently and even while he was there he was dozing off most of the time. Buzzer and Phantom rounds did not happen. Whatever he wrote in his statement was based on the summary provided by S-SAC.
AP-33 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Shivam Kant 160653 G-173 No 3 year suspension 1 0 1 Present during events.
Came back from Photography club around 2:45 am. Had normal introduction/interaction with students. Went to 177 & 171 and told students his name. Was not involved in any ragging. Went to basket ball court for 10 minutes. Saw some students from G-BOT there.
Denies any involvement in the incident.
He was not present during the interaction. He did go to room 171 but that was only to introduce himself and tell the freshers about the Photography Club. His name might have appeared in the complaints because of this. Since many of the activities mentioned in the complaints are known to have taken place in G-Mid, the complaint against him must be a case of mistaken identities.
AP-34 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Tejas Gupta 160747 A-309 Yes 1 year suspension 0 0 0 None Left hall around 8:15 pm and was in LHC Foyer till 4:30 am. Was not involved in any activity.
Was not in the Hall during the incident. Was at Dram Eve practice session in LHC Foyer up to 4:30 am, came back and went to sleep to wake up only at 12:00 noon. Failed his duty as HEC member.
Let the Hall around 8:15 pm and came back at 4:30 am after the practice session. Went to sleep to wake up at 12:00 noon, was neither aware of nor participated in the interaction session.
Abhishek Gupta 160028 A-310 Yes 1 year suspension 0 0 0 None Denies presence in the hall from 1:00 am till 5:15 am. Was not involved in any activity.
Was at the dance practice session up to 11:30 pm on Nov. 19, went to a birthday party in the OAT and then to DOAA canteen. Came out of the Academic Area at 5:15 am.
Went from the Dance practice to OAT at 11:30 pm, and to DOAA canteen around 1:45 am. Came back to his room at 6:00 am and went to sleep.
AP-35 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Aman Gupta 160087 G-270 No 1 year suspension 1 0 1 Was present during the events when students were asked to remove shirts, asked to speak sexually explicit language, and act out scenes, dance on vulgar songs and were shown pornography.
Saw some students introducing themselves at 1:30 am. Some students were without their shirts on. Advised his counselees not to go to Baap Wing but Y16 students didn't agree. Went to his room and slept when Aditya Bajpai didn't take any action.
Returned from RM Building around 12:30-12:45 am and went to the Hall canteen, was called by the CS core team member at 2:30 am asking about the goings on in the Hall, informed him that the senior-junior interaction was normal, went to sleep by 2:45 am.
Was in the Hall by 1:30 am and observed the interaction session, was at the introduction round for 10 minutes and then went to his room, took a call from the one of the core team members of CS, and then went sleep. Does not know when and how the taking off of shirts started but he did see some of the freshers without their shirts on.
AP-36 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Vipul Kohli 160795 G-270 No 1 year suspension 1 0 3 Present during the activities.
Went to Baap Wing where interaction was going on. Was standing outside with other wing mates. Denies being present in buzzer round.
Came to the Hall around 12:45, went to the Canteen, was back by 1:30 am, noticed the ongoing interaction and went to his room with Aman Gupta, Came out when Aman Gupta received the phone call from CS.
Was with Aman Gupta all the time, did not participate in the events, realized that something was wrong when Aman Gupta received the call from a CS core team member.
Rohan Sakeri 160580 G-371 Yes 1 year suspension 0 0 0 None Was not present in hall from 8:15 pm till 4:30 am. Was totally unaware of what happened.
Was at LHC Foyer from 8:15 pm to 4:30 am rehearsing for the Dram Eve.
Was at LHC Foyer upto 4:30 am and then went to the MT Section. Did not interact with any fresher that night.
AP-37 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 Summary Table Utkarsh Sagar 160759 A-308 Yes 1 year suspension 0 0 0 None Was in quad till 1:00 am. Saw the interaction going on but didn't participate. Went to his room and slept.
Has had no involvement in the ragging incident, had no information about the ragging neither did any complaint come to him.
Was not present at any point during the interaction sessions, no involvement in any incident of ragging.
The summary of discussion with the Wardens of Hall-II has been brought on record at page 109 of the counter affidavit and the same is extracted and reproduced herein below:-
AP-38 Senate/Agenda/2017-18/5th/07.12.2017 "Summary of discussion with the wardens of Hall II
(i) Wardens did not receive any complaints about ragging in Hall-II and came to know of the incident through DOSA;
(ii) Wardens talked to HEC members in presence of DOSA and ADHA and asked them to identify the offenders;
(iii) HEC members said that they were not aware of the incidents but took the responsibility and apologized;
(iv) DOSA and ADHA talked to the students in presence of the President, Student Gymkhana;
(v) Sachin Anugral (a Student Guide), who was taking a course with Dr. Devpriya Kumar (Mess warden-Hall II), talked to him fearing that action may be taken against all student guides. Dr. Devpriya Kumar advised him to talk to DOSA;
(vi) Sachin Anugral talked to DOSA in the presence of Dr. Satyadev Nandkumar and Dr. Deepu Philip who is also the Chairman, CSEC;
(vii) Sachin was told about the grave consequences, which may be a jail sentence, of involvement in ragging incident if reported to the police. However, by any stretch of imagination, this was not done to coerce Sachin to make any statement that he was not sure about."
On the aforesaid summary sheets/ table/ report, the Senate convened special meeting. In the meetings held on 07th and 08th December, 2017 decision was taken which is reproduced herein below:-
"IIT Kanpur Senate/504 Special Meeting/Minutes (2017-18/5th) 07.2.2017 and 08.12.2017 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR Minutes of the 504 (2017-18/5th) Special meeting of the Senate scheduled on Thursday, December 07, 2017 at 1000 hrs. and Friday, December 08, 2017 at 1530 hrs in L-17, LHC, IIT Kanpur. Item No. 1 To consider the appeals of suspended students as per the direction of Hon'ble Court Allahabad.
1. The Senate considered the report of the committee constituted by the Chairman, Senate to give personal hearing to the 22 students suspended by the decision of the Senate in its 500th meeting held on 21 September 2017 and 09 October 2017. The Chairman of the Committee presented the details of personal hearing of each suspended students and also provided all relevant documents to the Senate. After going through the appeals of the suspended students to review its earlier decision the Senate did not find any merit in the appeals of the following 16 students, hence rejected their appeals; so that punishment awarded to them remain unchanged. Details of such students & their punishments are as follows:-
Sl.No. Name Roll No. Punishments remains unchanged 1 Karan Kashyap 160321 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 2 Kashish Thakran 160326 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 3 Abhinav Kumar 160018 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 4 Umang Garg 160754 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 5 Nishant Arya 160457 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 6 Akash Yadav 160071 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 7 Bhupesh Kumawat 160201 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 8 Devendra Kolhe 160232 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 9 Sumit Kumar Mahla 160719 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 10 Supreet agarwal 160722 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 11 Anurag Chanani 160138 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 12 Sachin Angural 160597 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 13 Richeek Awasthi 160566 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 14 Shivam Kant 160653 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 15 Aman Gupta 160087 1 year (Two Semester) suspension 16 Vipul Kohli 160795 1 year (Two Semester) suspension
2. In case of the following six (6) students, after considering their appeals and other relevant documents, the Senate decided to reduce the punishment as mentioned against their names below:
Sl. No. Name Roll No. Punishments as decided in 500th Senate meeting Revised punishment in 504th Senate meeting 1 Abhinav Arora 160016 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 1 year (Two semester) suspension 2 Sameer Banchhor 160615 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 1 year (Two semester) suspension 3 Tejas Gupta 160747 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension 4 Abhishek Gupta 160028 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension 5 Rohan Sakeri 160580 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension 6 Utkarsh Sagar 160759 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension The Senate also decided that, since all 22 students have been given a minimum of one (1) semester suspension, the end semester examination (2017-18, I Semester) of all these suspended students who were provisionally allowed to appear in the examination stands cancelled.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
Approved Sd/-
Manindra Agrawal Officiating Director & Chairman Senate Date: 17.12.2017 Copy to: 1) All members and Special Invitees to the Senate for their information, record and comment(s), if any.
2) All faculties, who are not members of the Senate, for their information only.
K K Tiwari Secretary Senate"
The aforesaid decision was communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 26.12.2017. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Prateek Chandra and Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioners in Writ C Nos. 1419 of 2018 and 2903 of 2018; Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey for the petitioners in Writ C No. 584 of 2018; Sri Anoop Trivedi as well as Sri Swetashwa Agrawal for the petitioners in Writ C No. 2554 of 2018; Sri Rohan Gupta for I.I.T., Kanpur including its officers/authorities; and the counsel representing the Union of India. To assail the impugned punishment orders, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be summarized as follows:-
(a) That the Ordinances of the Institute do not specify a detailed procedure for taking disciplinary action against students in respect of their involvement in ragging except that the Senate shall constitute a standing committee which shall investigate and recommend a suitable course of action. Therefore the procedure adopted must necessarily conform with the principles of natural justice. The most fundamental principle of natural justice is that a person against whom action is proposed must be made aware of the charge as also the material on which such action is proposed. Thereafter, the incumbent should be offered opportunity to submit his explanation. Upon submission of explanation by the incumbent, the disciplinary body/ fact finding body must consider the explanation with reference to the accusation and the material in support thereof and, thereafter, record finding in respect of the guilt of the incumbent by disclosing its reasons to arrive at such finding by analysing the material brought before it. In the instant case, no charge memo specifying as to what conduct of theirs constituted an act of ragging was served upon the petitioners and, further, the explanation offered by the petitioners, on the complaints made against them, which were allegedly shown to them, was not dealt with inasmuch as no finding of guilt was returned with reference to the accusation, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered by the incumbents, so as to disclose as to how, and in what manner, the petitioners were guilty of ragging and, if so, to what extent. Therefore, the entire procedure adopted by the Institute to punish the petitioners suffered from a fundamental flaw which vitiated the entire decision making process thereby vitiating the impugned order of punishment;
(b) The Institute proceeded against the petitioners with an erroneous approach in law as would be reflected from the report of the S-SAC dated 08.10.2017 which gives a go-bye to the doctrine of proportionality and proceeds on a premise that if the abettor or perpetrator could not be identified, then even onlookers or victims should be penalized for not reporting incidents of ragging. Such an erroneous and predetermined disposition to some how punish students to set an example even without properly ascertaining the extent of their culpability has vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners;
(c) That the directions given by this Court in its orders dated 13.11.2017 and 21.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 51656 of 2017 and other connected writ petitions have not been complied with in its true letter and spirit, inasmuch as, (i) during the course of personal hearing, the statement made by the incumbents/ appellants/ petitioners was not reduced in writing; (ii) charges were not narrated to them; (iii) the version of the Wardens of Hall-II and other members of the Anti-Ragging Committee was neither noted nor narrated to the students;
(d) That the report of the Committee dealing with appeals of the petitioners did not comply with the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it did not record finding of guilt against any of the petitioners with reference to the allegations made and the explanation offered but only submitted recommendation for punishment by putting some data in a tabular form which can hardly be taken as an enquiry report. And since the final decision taken by the Senate also does not record finding in respect of guilt of any of the petitioners, the procedure adopted suffered from a fundamental flaw as a result the consequential punishment order stood vitiated and becomes vulnerable; and
(e) That all the petitioners are students; admittedly, no first information report was lodged; no injury was caused to anyone by the alleged overt or covert act of ragging; that interaction of seniors with freshers in the beginning of the academic session is an established culture and practice, therefore, keeping in mind that the Wardens did not directly receive any complaint about ragging in Hall-II but received information from DOSA, as would be clear from AP-38, at page 109 of the counter-affidavit in Writ C No. 584 of 2018, the punishment awarded to each of the petitioners without specific finding in respect of their culpability is way too harsh and is against the doctrine of proportionality.
In reply to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rohan Gupta, the learned counsel for the Institute, submitted that admittedly no specific procedure for holding an enquiry in respect of incidents of ragging has been provided for by the Ordinances and, in fact, the Ordinances empower the Senate to devise a procedure for dealing with such reported incidents of ragging, in that background the procedure adopted cannot be said to be faulty because the students were made aware of the complaints against them; the statement made against them; and were heard before recommending punishment. It has been submitted that pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioners herein, who had been the appellants, were provided personal hearing and during the course of personal hearing the complaints made against them were shown to them; the summary of their own statement which were recorded in the earlier investigation by the S-SAC were read out to them; they were asked to verify whether they had received copy of their own statement made to the S-SAC in the course of investigation; a summary of their appeal was narrated to them and they were asked if all the points had been covered in the summary; and they were specifically asked by the Committee whether they wish to provide any additional information in respect of their appeal. And all this was done in the presence of the student's representatives. Thereafter, summary sheet of each student was prepared separately. A perusal whereof would reveal that all aspects which they had to put forth were noticed and since they were aware of the complaints made against them as also the material brought against them, and were heard and their explanation was noted, there was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the Institute suffered from any fundamental flaw.
The learned counsel for the Institute further submitted that the Senate comprises of a large number of members and it being a huge body, which takes decision after deliberation on the material placed before it, the decision taken by it, after consideration of the material placed before it, need not contain detailed reasons. It has been submitted that the entire material collected in the hearing, pursuant to the direction of this Court, was placed before the Senate and the Senate deliberated upon the same and thereafter took a conscious decision to impose punishment upon the petitioners to the extent indicated in the decision. The punishment proposed to few petitioners had also been reduced and therefore it cannot be said that the decision making process was vitiated by non application of mind. It has been submitted that Senate being a large body of members, its decision being a collective decision, based on deliberation of material and the records placed before it, need not contain reasons because it would not be possible for a collective body to record reasons inasmuch as it is difficult to fathom as to what weighed in the mind of each of the members of a collective body. In support of the aforesaid contention, Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the Institute, placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta vs The Visitor/President Of India, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others: 2006(1) AWC 608 where, in paragraph 23 of the report, it has been observed that when a decision is taken by the Executive Council after following the procedure prescribed, the Executive Council of a University is not required to record reasons for its decision because where a collective decision by a body of person is required to be taken, it is neither practically possible nor legally required that opinion of all the members participating in the deliberations must be recorded, inasmuch as the decision of such bodies are collective in nature, and only the decision as a whole, is required to be recorded in writing and not the deliberation which had led to such a decision.
Sri Rohan Gupta further submitted that from the material collected during the course of investigation and the enquiry, it was apparent that some of the acts which the freshers were required to perform during the course of their alleged interactions with seniors, amounted to not only ragging but sexual harassment as well which is an aggravated form of ragging and therefore it was not obligatory on the institution to frame and serve a formal charge memo. It has been submitted that in such matters examination of the complainant in presence of the incumbent and, thereafter, allowing cross-examination is not necessary because that may not only prejudice the victims but also spoil /mar the career of students against whom action is taken and, therefore, a balanced procedure is to be adopted so as to balance the interest of the victim, the institution as well as the incumbent. Accordingly, the procedure devised by the Institute where under the incumbents were apprised of the complaints made against them; the statements made in support thereof; and given personal hearing to submit their explanation was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice and as such the punishment imposed upon the petitioners is not vitiated.
Sri Rohan Gupta further submitted that many of the students who have been punished were member of the Hall Executive Committee (HEC) and some of them were members of the Anti Ragging Squad and, therefore, an additional responsibility lay upon them not only to restrain themselves from doing any act which may constitute ragging but also not to covertly support such acts by being a by-stander. It has thus been submitted that the punishment which has been imposed cannot be said to be arbitrary or way too harsh keeping in mind that ragging is a menace and it needs to be dealt with an iron hand so that such incidents do not recur because it has been reported, time and again, in newspapers that incidence of ragging resulted in commission of suicide by students. Therefore to protect the larger interest of the institution, decision taken cannot be said to be harsh.
Sri Rohan Gupta, however, could not demonstrate by any document on record that the recommendation of punishment made either by the S-SAC or by the Committee constituted pursuant to the order passed by this Court was supported by a finding of guilt of any of the petitioners in respect of any of their alleged acts constituting ragging. He also could not point out any document to demonstrate that such finding of guilt was recorded in the report/recommendation after dealing with the explanation offered by the incumbents.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
Upon perusal of the record, what transpires is that certain incidents did take place in the intervening night of 19th and 20th August, 2017 in Hall-II which were certainly more than mere interaction between seniors and freshers. In respect of those incidents, some of the freshers of the year 2017 Batch made complaint. In connection with those complaints, investigation was held and statements were recorded. No doubt, these statements were not recorded as in a formal enquiry where, ordinarily, a statement is recorded in the presence of the incumbent, who has opportunity to cross-examine the person delivering his statement, but such procedure of examination and cross-examination, in view of the Court is not required in matters where an institute has to deal with incidents relating to ragging, particularly where allegations relate to incidents having sexual overtones. As, admittedly, no detailed procedure was provided in the Ordinances as to how such complaints would have to be dealt with, the procedure that needed to be followed had to comply with the principles of natural justice.
The most fundamental principle of natural justice is that no one should be condemned unheard.
To effectively implement the said principle, the incumbent has to be apprised of the charges/allegations/imputations of misconduct made against him so that he is in a position to submit his response/ explanation/ defence.
In matters relating to ragging, a charge memo may not be necessary as is normally served in a departmental enquiry taken against an employee. However, what is required is that the person against whom action is proposed should be made aware of the allegations as well as the material against him on which action is proposed so that he is in a position to effectively submit his explanation/defense.
Upon perusal of the material brought on record, this Court is of the view that although specific memo of charge may not have been served upon the petitioners/ incumbents but they were duly apprised of the complaints made against them; and they were shown the statements made against them. Therefore it cannot be said that they were not made aware of the accusations levelled against them. To this extent, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not apprised of the charges and that the charges were not specifically narrated to them is not acceptable, particularly when the complaints made against them and the statements recorded against them were shown and read out to them.
However, what amazes the Court is that neither the S-SAC which submitted its initial recommendation nor the Committee appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court, while submitting its recommendations, dealt with defence /explanation of the petitioners nor recorded finding of guilt of any of the incumbents/ petitioners by disclosing the nature and extent of their involvement in the alleged incidents of ragging as also whether they were actively or passively involved, if so, to what extent.
Principles of natural justice would remain an empty formality if the authority that proposes to take a decision against an incumbent fails to address the explanation offered by the incumbent. To show that the explanation has been addressed reasons are to be recorded in support of the finding of guilt with reference to the accusation, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered.
In Vasant D. Bhavsar vs Bar Council Of India & Ors. : (1999) 1 SCC 45, the apex court took the view that the disciplinary committee of Bar Council should pass speaking order. It was observed that they must set out the reasons for which they are passed. It was also observed that where the orders are based upon evidence, there must be some analysis of the evidence and the conclusion must be based on such analysis. It was observed that it is not enough to state the conclusions without indicating the material on the record upon which such conclusions are based.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the S-SAC made recommendation for punishment and so did the Committee appointed pursuant to the order of this Court but while making the recommendation neither the S-SAC nor the Committee appointed pursuant to order of this Court, analyzed the evidence which were brought against those students with reference to the defence of those students and they simply recommended punishment without even recording finding of guilt, which seems to have been accepted by the Senate. No doubt, the Senate may not be under an obligation to record reasons in support of its decision because it being a huge body, recording of reasons may be difficult, in as much as members may have different opinions, but the recommending body can and, in ordinary course, must record reasons in support of its conclusion and recommendations. In the instant case, the recommending body has just submitted recommendation, and a careful scrutiny of the record reveals that it failed to even return finding of guilt. That apart there are no reasons in support of its recommendation except that it collated some data of the proceeding in a tabular form. Such a report can not be made basis of action, particularly when the decision making body, such as the Senate, by the nature of its composition is not in a position to record reasons for the decision taken after analyzing the data put before it.
As in the instant case, the recommendations submitted by the S-SAC and, thereafter, by the Committee, appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court, had not recorded any specific finding of guilt with reference to the accusations, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered, and no reasons are there in support of its recommendations with reference to the accusations, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered, the report as well as the recommendations made stand vitiated, particularly when from the summary sheets prepared it does not appear that the incumbents/ petitioners pleaded guilty. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the decision to impose punishment on mere recommendation without there being any specific finding of guilt recorded against the petitioners in respect of the acts constituting ragging is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
At this stage, it may be observed that mere expression of regret or submission of apology by students under the belief that they could have done something more to prevent such incidents that may constitute ragging, by itself, would not amount to admission of their guilt. Guilt has to be ascertained with reference to the role of each player, by taking note of his overt or covert act constituting ragging. Likewise, failure to prevent such incidents by members of Hall Executive Committee (HEC) or members of Anti Ragging Squad may not ispso facto amount to ragging by them unless demonstrated by material that they actively or passively participated in such activities which may constitute ragging as per the definition of ragging. Though it is always open to the institute to remove such persons from the posts carrying such responsibilities.
It would also be apposite to observe that the claim of the petitioners that there had been infraction of the direction given by this Court inasmuch as the statement of each of the students recorded during personal hearing was not reduced in writing cannot be accepted. Because the minutes of the hearing as well as summary sheet prepared in respect of each of the petitioners disclose that the petitioners had been given opportunity to disclose whether all points were covered in their appeals or not. And since their appeals had been quite elaborate and it dealt with their explanation/ submission, it could be said that even though their statement were not separately recorded and reduced in writing but by adoption of the statement made in appeal there had been substantial compliance of the direction given by this Court in that regard.
Apart from above, when a person codifies all his points and explanations and submits the same, it is possible that at the time of personal hearing he may not be in a position to take all those points which he has already codified, therefore, if the authority asks such person if he has to add anything further and the person says that nothing further need be added, treating the already codified statement as statement recorded during personal hearing cannot be said to be contrary to law or principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that on this count, it cannot be said that the respondent-Institute had violated the direction of this Court.
The Court would also like to observe that the petitioners are not petty criminals. They are in a premier institute of this nation which has been conferred the status of an institute of national importance. To get admission in such institutes is an arduous task and only the competent few are able to gain an entry. Such students are therefore potential national assets. For taking a harsh decision on such students, there has to be not only material but analysis of that material with reference to the defence / explanation taken by such students because a harsh decision may not only defeat the morale of such student but may also be a loss to the nation. Therefore, before taking decision to impose punishment there should be careful scrutiny of the material collected and the explanation offered. Not only that even past practice relating to interaction between freshers and seniors should be taken into consideration to ascertain whether there has been excesses or not. These observations may not be understood that lenient view has to be taken on ragging. What is required is a level headed approach keeping in mind all parameters such as, inter alia, whether there has been bodily abuse of any person; whether any person has been physically and mentally tortured to an extent that it may force him to take a drastic step; and whether the ordinary fresher-senior interaction has gone too far resulting in a criminal complaint.
In view of the discussion made above, keeping in mind that the recommendation of punishment was not supported by finding of guilt after analyzing the accusation made, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered by the incumbents, this court is of the view that the decision taken pursuant to such recommendation cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The punishment orders dated 09.10.2017; and 07/08.12.2017 taken by the Senate and approved by the Chairman Senate on 17.12.2017, as communicated vide letter dated 26.12.2017 are hereby quashed. The Committee appointed pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 13.11.2017 and 21.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 51656 of 2017 shall submit a fresh recommendation/report in the light of the observations made herein above, where after it shall be open to the Senate to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. In the meantime, the directions contained in the earlier order dated 13.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 51656 of 2017 in respect of entitlement of the petitioners to participate in the Semester Examinations as also to reside in the campus for further Semester Examinations with the rider that they shall not meet or interact with fresher students during their stay inside the campus shall continue and abide the decision taken pursuant to this order. There is no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.02.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari