Procedure followed by SAU to expel PhD students at deviance with principles of natural justice: Delhi HC

A single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the facts of the case and issues involved were “largely identical” to those which were considered by the court in a plea moved by another SAU student, Apoorva YK.

In the case, the HC had quashed two orders passed by the varsity expelling, observing that the procedure adopted by the varsity to consider the student’s case was a “sham with a pre-determined intent to expel the student”.

“It is clear that the procedure followed by the SAU in the present case is even more at deviance with the principles of natural justice and rules, regulations, bye laws governing SAU than the procedure which was followed by SAU in Apoorva YK,” Justice Shankar said Tuesday.

The court further said that while in Apoorva YK’s case the university had at least issued a show cause notice to her regarding the allegations of indiscipline, in the case of Umesh and Bhim Raj no such cause notice was issued before the November 25, 2022 expulsion decision was issued. It added that the decision in Apoorva would apply in this case as well.

Justice Shankar said that principle of “audi alteram partem” is one of the most important principles wherein a party has to be given an opportunity of hearing before a decision against it is taken.

“There are very rare exceptions where a post decisional hearing will suffice… It is fundamental to principles of natural justice, that before the decision to punish the student was taken, the student ought to have been given an opportunity to represent against the proposed decision. Taking a decision to expel the student first and thereafter, inviting the student to represent against the decision is as good as presenting the student with a fait accompli…,” the HC said after noting that post expulsion, subsequently the varsity constituted a High Powered Committee which is stated to have granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. After receiving recommendations from the committee, the varsity rejected representations made by petitioners against the expulsion orders.

During the hearings, SAU’s counsel drew the court’s attention to a January 23 decision of a coordinate bench of the HC in a case concerning university teachers who had approached the court against show-cause notices issued to them for their alleged involvement in a student protest for redressal of their grievances.

The university counsel said that the coordinate bench differed with the present court’s decision on extending the writ jurisdiction of HC under Article 226 of the Constitution with respect to SAU. The coordinate bench had said that SAU has the “status of an international university”.

He also submitted that it would be appropriate that instead of proceeding with the matter the issue be referred to the division bench due to difference of views in the judgments passed by the two coordinate benches.

After perusing through the decision in teachers’ case, Justice Shankar however said that the case of the teachers was related to a “service dispute” and did not involve students trying to enforce their right to education, which is “directly relatable to the public function performed” by the SAU i.e. imparting education. “I do not feel that any matter which requires reference of the issue to the division bench arises,” Justice Shankar said.