In its September 16 order, the single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar constituted a two-member committee of judicial officers to inquire into allegations against the Head of the Department (HoD) of Law at Dr Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj, and to examine how the university dealt with his complaint. The bench had fixed the next date of hearing for September 24; the judicial inquiry report was to be submitted on this date.
The HoD and the university filed a special appeal challenging the order.
Hearing the appeal and the counsel for both sides, a division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Kunal Ravi Singh, in its order dated September 23, said, “At this stage, we are prima facie of the view that when an Equal Opportunity Cell was available in the University, and also the prayer was to the effect that the Equal Opportunity Cell itself may inquire into the matter after excluding the HoD, who faced the allegations, then there was no occasion for getting an inquiry done by the judicial officers.”
It added, “Even if the allegations are of a serious nature, the power of the University to examine such allegations through an appropriately constituted Equal Opportunity Cell ought not to have been taken away, as it is within the domain of the University to look into the welfare of the students and deal with situations as they arise.”
The division bench further stated in the order, “Since we are prima facie of the view that the inquiry should not have been conducted by judicial officers… further proceedings… shall remain stayed till the next date of listing of the Special Appeal.”
The order also stated that the Special Appeal be placed as a fresh case on September 29 before the appropriate Court. If the inquiry report has been prepared, then it shall be placed in a sealed cover before this court on the next date, it added.
Story continues below this ad
What the single bench said
The student, who is pursuing BA LLB (Hons), had approached the court alleging that the HoD, who is also the warden of the boys hostel, had used his academic and administrative authority to humiliate him based on caste.
He also alleged that the varsity administration shielded the HoD by failing to act on his complaint.
Among the remarks cited by the petitioner was: “Tum to achchi family se ho, tumhe reservation kyo chahiye? (You belong to a good family, why do you need reservation?)”.
He had also sought independent review or re-evaluation of his Constitutional Law-II and other answer sheets by an impartial evaluator, in accordance with university rules, to determine whether they had been assessed using the same standards as other students.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Diwakar, in the order, had said the allegations were serious and required examination by an impartial agency. The bench constituted a committee comprising the Judge, Small Cause Court, District Court, Prayagraj, and Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, to conduct the inquiry.
The committee was asked to examine whether students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were subjected to caste-based humiliation or discrimination by the HoD, or by any other person employed by or working at the university, and whether the complaints made in this regard were dealt in accordance with the applicable regulations.
The court had directed the Vice-Chancellor to constitute an independent committee to re-evaluate the petitioner’s answer sheets in subjects taught and evaluated by the HoD in the fifth semester, as well as any other subjects the petitioner may indicate.
The Vice-Chancellor was also directed to file an affidavit stating whether the university has constituted an Equal Opportunity Cell and a committee for redressal of grievances of SC and ST students in accordance with applicable University Grants Commission regulations.
