Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

d. Notice

7. In addition to all of the lapses in the decision making process the Petitioner was not given notice about the proceedings which the Respondent undertook to punish the Petitioner. She would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors 2008 (14) SCR 859.

B. Non-Application of Mind

8. According to Ms. Rajkotia, the order passed is itself flawed in many respects. The imposition of the same penalty on all concerned students barring two, in spite of huge differences in the acts that they have been held guilty of, reflects lack of application of mind as well as a complete ignorance of the principles of sentencing that an administrative body entrusted with holding an enquiry must be aware of. Moreover, while the Appellate Authority has limited itself to the question of quantum of punishment, it has failed to provide any reasons for the punishment imposed. It must be mentioned here again that the Petitioner was not the organizer of the event in question and was present in capacity of being an elected representative of the Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH). The fact that the orders passed against all the students were in boilerplate language furthers the factum of lack of application of mind by the Appellate Authority. She would refer to the judgments, in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Ghordandas 1952 SC 16 and D'Souza v. State of Bombay 1956 SCR 382.

I, Aishwarya Adhikari, was not an organizer of the event, and had no party in "forcefully holding the event." I did participate in the event as part of the audience and agreed with many other students and organizations that he administration had cancelled the event barely minutes before it was scheduled to start because of the complaint made by ABVP................

As a representative of GSCASH, my presence in the Dhabas in routine. Far from creating a law and order situation, my presence there enabled me to resolve a situation that created a law and order problem. I saw near the Godavari bus stop that a women student was having an altercation with a group of students led by Saurabh Sharma and Gaurav Kumar Jha. The women student alleged that she was inappropriately manhandled by them a while ago. I went to Ganga Dhaba at the request of that woman student to receive a complaint to the GSCASH regarding the incident..........

The slogans that were raised by the JNU students present in the Sabarmati Dhaba were familiar ones against oppression and injustice, which have been raised in many protest events in the past. I did not initiate any slogans on that day but responded to the familiar slogans like many other students.......

16. According to Ms. Routray, the Petitioner feeling unsafe within the campus is not a viable excuse since the Respondent had taken steps to ensure the safety and tight security for all the students within the campus and, in fact even morning walkers were prohibited to enter the campus. Further, the petitioner was residing within the campus and had hand delivered all her letters/communications to the Administrative Building, from which it is evident that the Petitioner deliberately avoided appearing before the committee and made baseless excuses not to do so. Further, according to Ms. Routray the Petitioner on one hand stated that she did not initiate nor respond to slogans during the event and on the other hand goes on to say that she did not initiate any slogans but responded to familiar slogans. It is therefore evident from the Petitioner's contradictory statements that she was very much present in the event and did in fact raise slogans thus, contributing in worsening the situation. According to Ms. Routray, the stand of the Petitioner that she was present at the event as a representative of GSCASH and on the basis of a complaint of a female student; however, there was no written complaint before GSCASH nor before this court, which shows that any such complaint was even made. As per the rules any such complaint would have to be filed before GSCASH within a specified period. Further, the Security Deposition of Naveen Yadav clearly stated that the Petitioner was very much present when the event was being organized at 4:45 pm.