104 views |0 comments

Written by: Prashant Jaiswal (Intern)

Edited by: Anubhav Yadav (Content Head & Developer)

Introduction

A student from Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti Urdu, Arabi-Farsi University was suspended from the university on the grounds that he was organizing a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The student reached the door of the Supreme Court and raise an objection against the decision of Allahabad High Court for affirming the university action.

 

Petitioner Contentions

Through the Special leave petition, Petitioner demanded interim relief by staying the order of Allahabad high court dated 23 July 2021 which sought permission to allow the student to attend his college and complete his graduation.

Petitioner argued that the decision of rustication is not reasonable as it was passed without hearing the student’s view and the chancellor also breaches the principle of morality by not listening to the student’s view personally. Petitioner pointed out that the High Court should consider the grievances of student on the basis of merit instead of just affirming the rustication order.

The petition was filed by the Advocate on Record Talha Abdul Rahman and by Advocate Harsh V Kediya who raised the issue that the Petitioner was never provided with any show-cause notice or charge sheet. The charge against the Petitioner is the attempt to organize an Anti- CAA protest solely. As per the plea, Proctor called the Petitioner on 1st February 2020 to appear before a 7 member committee and respond to the charges of organizing Anti-CAA protest only and none other charge is involved. On February 10, the student again appeared before a 7 member committee and gave a written statement in which he mentioned that he has the right to organize a peaceful protest as per the right given by the constitution and the petitioner was even didn’t able to organize it as violence is going on throughout the country.

Petitioner further added that the other accusation related to past events was made orally by the committee on that day which was not included in the summons dated 1st February which clearly shows that petitioner was resurrected unlawfully with the predetermined mind to rusticate the student. Petitioner also stated that the high court didn’t appreciate the Petitioner’s rustication from college on the basis of a Facebook post against the implementation of CAA and NRC and his right to organize the protest as per the constitution.

Petitioner contended that universities’ authority to suspend the student is uncontrollable and thus arbitrary in nature. Petitioner submitted that no ordinance related to student disciplinary matters is provided to the public till now. The respondent has not even formulated any ordinance till date even though the university was established a decade ago.

Cases Referred

Petitioner refers to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 in which the court held that the judgment comes out of a bias or impartiality is nullified and the test of biasness is measured by whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that was a bias.

Another case referred by the petitioner is of Karnataka High Court in which the Court stated that the power to rusticate a student is the result of university governance and college cannot expel the student arbitrarily.

Share

Post comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *