South Asian University student expulsion case: Seems like a tirade against these students, says Delhi HC

“Arguments of both sides have been heard. Judgment reserved,” a single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said after hearing the matter for over three hours.

The plea challenges two office orders–one of February 17, 2023 which said that the High Powered Committee constituted to consider the student’s case after a November 22, 2022 show cause notice was issued to her had recommended her expulsion and declared her “out of bounds” of SAU.

As per this Office Order the Committee had further recommended that the petitioner may be debarred from joining any programme of the University in future. The student has also challenged a March 2, 2023 office order which said that the committee had considered the student’s representation made after the February 2023 order and recommended the dismissal of her “reconsideration”.

The matter is related to a students’ protest at the university in September 2022.

During the course of the hearing, advocate Abhik Chimni appearing for the student argued that there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice in the procedure followed by the SAU wherein she was not provided the evidence with respect to the allegations against her.

He added that there was a “clear statutory mandate” in the rules and the varsity had not given his client “tools to defend” herself.

SAU’s counsel submitted that between October and November 2022 a “group of students, which included the petitioner, had gheraoed office of the acting registrar” when he was in a meeting with other officials.

To this the HC orally observed, “How is that relevant? She may be guilty of anything; if you are taking action against her you follow the procedure as per the rules that govern you…You made a whole lot of allegations. She says she has denied it. Where did you give it (material) to her… This is a complete violation of natural justice…”

SAU’s counsel replied that the student’s reply to the show cause notice does not completely deny her presence in the office of the officials of SAU.

The HC, however, also orally said, “Assuming that the student used obscene language; I have seen cases where allegations of obscene language are there but I have never seen them being reproduced like this (in show cause notice). One gets a distinct impression that such language has been reproduced to prejudice the petitioner… it seems like a tirade against these students.”