Principles different in disciplinary proceedings of universities: HC in response to JNU students

The students have contended that not giving them due opportunity to defend themselves against the charge of indiscipline, violated the principles of natural justice.

By: PTI | New Delhi | Updated: October 20, 2016 1:21 pm
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy,Hashimpura massacre victims, Hashimpura massacre, Hashimpura massacre victims families, Hashimpura massacre victims compensation, state of UP, National Human Rights Commission, Delhi High Court, Meerut Legal Services Authority, latest news, India news JNU students claim opportunity of defense against charge of injustice. (File)

Delhi High Court Wednesday said that the principles of natural justice applicable in criminal cases would not be the same for disciplinary proceedings being held by a university against its students. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observation in response to the argument on behalf of some students, including former JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, that JNU did not give them the due opportunity to defend themselves against the charge of indiscipline.



Apart from the three, 18 other students have moved the high court challenging Jawaharlal Nehru University’s (JNU) order holding them guilty of indiscipline in connection with a controversial February 9 event. The court heard arguments on behalf of Umar and listed the matter for further hearing on November 7 when it will hear the pleas of the other students. Till then, the interim position will continue, it said.

The students have contended that not giving them due opportunity to defend themselves against the charge of indiscipline, violated the principles of natural justice. The court, however, said a university has to maintain strict discipline amongst its students and where disciplinary proceedings are being held, “you cannot expect the same principles of natural justice as you see in a criminal case.”

It, thereafter, asked the lawyer for the students to show the rules that JNU had to follow while taking disciplinary action against its students. Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Umar, then told the court that the JNU Students Discipline and Conduct Rules say that due opportunity to defend themselves has to be provided.

He said that in the case of Umar, no such opportunity was given to him. He was not even informed about the charges against him and was only told that a high-level enquiry committee was looking into the February 9 incident where he has to appear to explain his role and defend himself, he said.

The students in their pleas have also challenged their punishment, which ranges from rustication for a few semesters to withdrawal of hostel facilities. The appellate authority of the university had rusticated Umar from JNU till December this year, while Bhattacharya was asked to be out of the varsity for five years.

Kanhaiya, Khalid and Bhattacharya were earlier arrested in a sedition case in connection with the February 9 event on the campus against hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised. They are now out on bail.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. R
    R. Singh
    Oct 23, 2016 at 11:55 am
    Father - son duo Sibal family of " Zero Loss" fame appears again, rising to the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Acts as defence lawyers for Jihadi- Marxists , but not rape victims or victims of Jihadi- Marxist;br/gt;lt;br/gt;What a world!
  2. R
    R. Singh
    Oct 23, 2016 at 11:52 am
    Why is Nehru hi Cingress lawyer defending Jihadis?