Mohd. Zareeq Khan & Others vs Jamia Millia Islamia
1998 Latest Caselaw 1109 Del

ORDER

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition were students of Jamia Millia Islamia, respondent in the writ petition. They were pursuing their studies in different courses. Disciplinary action was taken against them and in accordance with the decision of the Discipline Committee, the Vice-Chancellor expelled them from the University for one academic year (1997-98) and a campus ban was imposed on them for the said duration with immediate effect. On expiry of the period of expulsion the petitioners sought re-admission in the academic session 1998-99. Since the respondent refused to re-admit the etitioners in the courses which were being undergone by them prior to the above mentioned expulsion, the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent University to give admission to the petitioners in the respective courses.

2. Lt. Gen. Zaki (Retd.), Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia has filed an affidavit in reply to the notice issued to show cause why the petition be not admitted. For a proper appreciation of the stand of the respondent it is necessary to quote the following paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the Vice-Chancellor.

"2. I respectfully say and submit that the present case falls to be viewed in a far wider macro perspective and in light of the effect/ramifications of its decision one way or the other on the larger interests of the student community in general, rather than being viewed merely as a case of 4 individuals students rusticat- ed for acts of indiscipline for a given period who now seek readmission upon expiry of such period. So as to properly convey the rationale behind and basis for declining readmission to the petitioners (and indeed to some other such students), it is important to set out some background facts.

3. It is unfortunate that over a period of time, Jamia Millia Islamia, which has a glorious history, came to suffer from a process of creeping denigration leading to frequent disturbances and indiscipline on the Campus. Undue relaxations, uncalled for condensation, non-adherence to rules, favouritism and nepotism began to endanger the health of the University and its academic standards and goals.

One of the worst symptoms and manifestations of the malady erupted on the Campus in May, 1997 following a judgment of this Hon'ble Court striking down reservations in favour of certain categories of candidates for admission to courses. Unrest and indiscipline openly manifested itself in various unhealthy tones. Politicians, interlopers, anti-social elements, land-sharks joined in to give fillip to the disturbances. Law and order observance of rules and regulations took a back seat. The University administration became supine and indolent. Academic and even administrative functioning of the University was paralysed with strikes, gheraos, bands and physical intimidation becoming the order of the day. The law of the jungle came to prevail on the Campus. The Annual Examinations had to be postponed for an indefinite period and it appeared that 1996-97 may have to be declared a null year in the University academic calendar.

This is the situation which prevailed when the deponent came to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University by the President of India and joined as such on June 30,1997.

4. I respectfully, humbly and with all humility submit that all actions of the deponent as the principal executive and academic officer of the Respondent University have since been aimed and focused at putting the University back on its rails,restoring discipline, inculcating respect for and spirit of due observance of rules, improving academic and administrative functioning of the University by appropriate review and revision of Ordinances, rules and regulations and endeavouring to instil a spirit of pride in genuine pursuit and imparting of academic knowledge and improvement of academic standards.

5. To start with, the deponent invited and interacted with various groups of academic and administrative staff and students to analyse the chaotic situation and bring about a semblance of law and order on the Campus. I found on free and frank discussions that the majority of staff and students were not only willing but even keen to extend co-operation for restoring the academic functioning of the University. Many of the misguided were open to persuasion and came to realise that it was in their own interest to stand and succeed on their own merit. It was indeed some antisocial and undesirable elements both from within and outside the University who were inciting, misguiding and even intimidating others to participate in protests/strikes. It become necessary, in order to restore and maintain a conductive academic environment, to take strict action against those who indulged in or incited violence and indiscipline.

6. Appropriate remedial steps had, therefore, to be taken to ensure that the vast majority of students who were genuinely interested in pursuit of their academic studies were not held to ransom by undesirable elements. Deterrent action by way of rustication/Campus ban was accordingly taken against those involved in incidents of physical violence, intimidation or other grievous acts of indiscipline.

7. At that point of time, the University administration headed by academic session 1998-99 the situation and environment on the Campus may improve to a degree where such students could be readmitted. However, it transpires that even at this point of time there prevails a fragile environment of law and order. Sinister efforts continue to be deliberately made by land mafia and anti-social elements who stand to gain and thrive on disturbed environment by provoking students to raise unwarranted demands and undermining peace and discipline. Extra care has necessarily to be taken to this delicate juncture to ensure that peace returned continues without interference or disruption. It is imperative in order to ensure stability that the safeguard of keeping out those with tainted record be maintained for the time being. Keeping those imperatives in view, the University administration headed by the deponent decided not to admit/readmit those with tainted record of indiscipline, the petitioners fall in this category. The decision is purely by way of preventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard academic careers of thousands of continuing students and not a punitive measure by way of disciplinary action and punishment.

8. The deponent respectfully submits that Statute 31 of the Statutes of the University embodied in the Schedule to the Jamia Milla Islamia Act, 1988, which deals with maintenance of discipline among students of the University confers on the Vice-Chancellor powers which are preventive as also powers by way of imposing punishment/penalties. Power of preventive action flows from the generality of his powers relating to discipline under Clause (1) of Statute 31. Clause (1) and (3) of Statute 31 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference:-

31. MAINTENANCE OF DISCIPLINE AMONG STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY:

(1) All powers relating to discipline and disciplinary action in relation to students shall vests in the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice- Chancellor).

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of his powers relating to the maintenance of discipline and taking such action in the interest of maintaining discipline as may seem to him appropriate, the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor) may, in the exercise of his powers, by order, direct that any student or students be expelled or rusticated, for a specified period, or be not admitted to a course or courses of study in a Department or an Institution of the University for a stated period, or be punished with fine for an amount to be specified in the order, or be debarred from taking an examination or examinations conducted by the University or a Department or an Institution for one or more years, or that the results of the student or students concerned in the examination or examinations in which he or they have appeared be cancelled.

While interpreting similarly worded Ordinances of the University of Delhi in Narender Singh Vs. University of Delhi & others, 1998 II AD (Delhi) 321, this Hon'ble Court observed that Clause (1) "clearly recognises the generality of the Vice-Chancellor's powers relating to the maintenance of discipline as may seem to him appropriate." It was held that powers under Clause (1) were not restricted or circumscribed by provision pari materia with Clause (3) of Statute 31 of Jamia Milla Islamia.

I respectfully reiterate that the decision not to grant admission/readmission to those with tainted record of indiscipline is applicable and has been applied generally to such students as a preventive measure in the wider interests of the University as a whole and the thousands of continuing existing students in particular. The same should not be viewed as or considered to be by way of disciplinary action in any individual case(s).

9. The four petitioners in the present writ petition have in terms admitted that they were rusticated from the University and Campus ban was imposed on them for having indulged in acts of gross indiscipline. it is pertinent here to note their respective acts of indiscipline:-

Mohd. Zareeq Khan (Petitioner No.1):

Mohd. Zareeq Khan (Petitioner No.1 physically assaulted and beat up a student (Rehan Ali) at 12.45 a.m. (past midnight) on 28.7.97. This had been preceded by two earlier reported assaults on Rehan Ali in which the first petitioner had been involved.

Naseem Ahmad Lari (Petitioner No.2) and Khursheed Anwar (Petitioner No.3) along with 2 others physically assaulted and beat up a student (Asaf Ali) on 8.4.97 and subsequently gheraod, intimidated and forced the Proctor to sign letter dated 10.4.97 purporting to withdraw show-cause Notice. Earlier an F.I.R. 95/97 Date 29.1.1997 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC was registered by the police against Petitioner No. 3 and another. Yet another FIR No. 178/97 u/s 323/506/34 IPC dt. 25.2.97 was registered by the police against the Petitioner No.2 and 3 and two others.

Mohd. Ali (Petitioner No. 4) along with 3 others physically assaulted a student (Mohd. Asif Khan) on 8.4.97 and subsequently gheraoed the Proctor and his deputies, misbehaved with them and forced the Proctor to sign a letter withdrawing Show-cause Notice. In a subsequent incident Mohd. Ali misbehaved with and used abusive and filthy language at and against the Provost, Wardens and Security Incharge on 6.10.97. Earlier in August, 1997, he had been implicated as an assailant in an incident of stabbing of a student during run up to the Student's Union election.

10. The deponent respectfully and humbly submits that it is only fragile peace on the Campus that it was decided that readmission and reinduction of students with such credentials; at this juncture is fraught with grave risk of jeopardising the academic environment and interests of thousands of students and, thus, highly inadvisable. It is not only the deponent but the entire Discipline Committee of the University with includes all Deans, Principals, Librarian and Protector who deliberated on the subject (including on representations submitted by the petitioners) and decided not to grant readmission.

11. I say that the allegation that the petitioners have been subject to discriminatory treatment and that others rusticated alone with when have been readmitted, is false and baseless. The petitioners have not cited any instance of readmission of any such student. I say that the same yardstick has been applied to all such students and no similarly placed student has been readmitted. In case, unwitting by some oversight, any such student has been readmitted, the petitioners may supply relative particulars so that the deponent may personally examine as to how (if at all) this may have occurred and take appropriate action."

3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were already punished for the alleged acts of indiscipline by expelling them from the University for one academic year (1997-98) only hence on expiry of the period of expulsion they are entitled to be restored to the position which existed before the expulsion and, therefore, they are entitled to be readmitted to the respective courses which were being undergone by them. According to the learned counsel, by denying readmission to the course concerned, the petitioners were given yet another punishment for the same acts of indiscipline for which disciplinary action was taken and punishment was imposed. It is contended that the action of the respondent in imposing such a second punishment is illegal, unauthorised and without competence. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the decision to deny readmission to the petitioners is not part of the earli iplinary action which culminated in the expulsion of the petitioners from the University for one academic year. The decision not to admit the petitioners is a fresh and independent decision taken by the respondent in the larger interests of the University as a whole and of the existing students in particular. I find that the above contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is supported by the averments in the affidavit of the Vice-Chancellor. The impugned action of denying admission/readmission to the petitioners is independent of the disciplinary action already taken against the petitioners. As stated by the Vice-Chancellor, the denial of admission/readmission to the petitioners is not another punishment for the misconduct or indiscipline which led to the expulsion of the petitioners for one academic year and it is only a preventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard the academic career of thousands of students. Hence the question is whether such denial of admission/readmission of a student as a preventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard academic career of another students is legal and authorised.

4. The respondent has relied on Clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the Statutes of the University embodied in the Schedule of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. Clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 have been quoted in paragraph 8 of the affidavit of the Vice Chancellor extracted above. In view of Clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 there cannot be any doubt that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to direct that a student be not admitted to a course. It is well settled that a candidate has no vested right for admission to a course in an educational institution and that the authorities of the institution have the right to refuse admission to a candidate on relevant and valid grounds. The question is whether the said power to refuse admission can be exercised while considering the admission of a student who, having completed one year or more of a course, seeks admission/promotion to the next year of the same course. Admittedly the petitioners were expelled from the University the were already undergoing a course and had completed one or more years of the course concerned. They are seeking admission to the same year of the course to which they had been admitted/promoted at the beginning of the academic year 1997-98. Hence the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of a student who, having completed one or more years of a course, seeks promotion/admission to the next year of the same course. Therefore, the question is whether a student who had already been admitted to a course can be refused admission/promotion to the next year of the course on the ground that he has a tainted record of indiscipline and by way of preventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard the academic career of other students. In my view the provisions in Clause (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the Statutes confer ample powers on the Vice-Chancellor to refuse admission to such a student on the above mentioned ground. Again in my view the said power was exercised by the Vice-Chellor in this case for sufficient and justifiable reasons. The Vice-Chancellor has explained in his affidavit the situation which prevailed in the respondent University in the past and the situation which prevails at present. Earnest efforts are being made to restore normalcy, discipline and academic standards in the University and to prevent recurrence of indiscipline, violence and criminal acts. The Vice-Chancellor has explained how the larger interests of academic life in the Campus and the interest of other students out-weigh the individual interest of the petitioners. The Vice-Chancellor has also stated that the decision to deny admission/readmission to the petitioners was taken not by the Vice-Chancellor alone but also by the entire Discipline Committee of the University which included all Deans, Principals, Librarian and Proctor. In view of the acts of indiscipline committed by each of the petitioners stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the Vice-Chancellor, it cannot e disputed that the petitioners have a tainted record of indiscipline and that their presence can be potential and serious threat to the maintenance of discipline and peace on the Campus. Though it is sad that the petitioners will be losing the opportunity to complete the course, considering the larger interests of the University and the welfare of the other students of the University I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the respondent. Violence and criminal acts have now become very common in educational institutions and they have to be crushed with an iron hand in the larger interests of the society. Students should not be allowed to remain under the impression that those indulging in violence and criminal acts can get away with no loss or damage to themselves after inflicting serious losses and damage to others and jeopardising the career of thousands of other students. The situation has reached such a dangerous stage that any leniency shown by authorities of educational institutions will undermine the welfare and future of innocent, peace loving and illustrious students. Educational authorities seldom show the required firmness and courage while dealing with such a situation. Such failures on the part of the educational authorities have contributed to the deterioration of discipline and academic standard in educational institutions. Hence when some body shows the courage and commitment to set things right, the Court should not directly or indirectly frustrate the effort. Any interference by the court on technical grounds or out of sympathy and compassion will demoralise the authorities who take strong action to prevent and suppress indiscipline and violence on the campus. Hence even if there could be some doubt regarding the power of the respondent to deny admission/readmission to the petitioners on expiry of the period of expulsion, I am not prepared to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. I say so with a sense of grief but with the consolation that I am constrained to say so in the larger interests, welfare and career of thousands of innocent students who are not before me but whose innocent and anxious faces continue to haunt me.

5. In the writ petition the petitioners have stated that some of the students who had been rusticated along with them were given readmission by the respondent. The said statement in the writ petition has been denied in paragraph 11 of the affidavit of the Vice-Chancellor. Even otherwise I am of the view that the respondent is competent to consider the case of each student separately on its own merit depending on the gravity and number of the acts of indiscipline. Since the petitioners have not given any specific instance of discriminatory treatment it is not possible for this court to consider the allegation that the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination, especially in view of the respondent's denial of such allegation.

6. In view of the factual and legal position stated above, I hold that the writ petition is devoid of merit and that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.