Delhi High Court
Amandeep Kadian & Anr. vs Jamia Millia Islamia University on 3 December, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.12.2013
+ WP(C) No.7521 of 2013 & CM No.16087 of 2013 (Directions)
SHARAT SHEKHAR TOMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay & Mr. Mahesh
Prasad, Advs.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Ms. Jaya Goyal &
Mr. Rohit, Advs.
+ WP(C) No.7548 of 2013 & CM Nos.16143 of 2013 (Directions)
& 16144 of 2013 (Exemption)
PULKIT CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. M.A. Niyazi & Mr. Sanjay Sood,
Advs.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Ms. Jaya Goyal &
Mr. Rohit, Advs.
+ WP(C) No.7639 of 2013 & CM No.16289 of 2013 (Directions)
AMANDEEP KADIAN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.K. Jain, Adv.
versus
W.P.(C) No.7521 of 2013 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Ms. Jaya Goyal &
Mr. Rohit, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGEMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
The petitioners before this Court were the students of the LLB
Course of the respondent-Jamia Millia Islamia University when they
came to be suspended on 5.12.2012 and campus ban was also imposed
on them on the allegations of having committed rape. The aforesaid
order came to be passed by the University under Statute 31 of its
Statutes.
2. The petitioners were prosecuted for the offence alleged to have
been committed by them but were acquitted by the court of Sessions
vide order dated 29.7.2013. A perusal of the said judgement would
show that the prosecutrix did not identify any of the accused persons
during the course of trial. No other witness was produced by the
prosecution to prove the alleged rape. It was in these circumstances that
the court of Sessions acquitted all the accused facing trial in the said
case.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite their acquittal, the
University has not reinstated them and as a result thereof they are unable
to pursue their studies.
4. The Discipline Committee of the University in its meeting held on
23.8.2013, considered the request of the petitioners seeking permission
to resume their studies and rejected the same, taking the following view:
"The issue of allowing the Applicants to resume their
academics on the rolls of the University, and to recall the order
of suspension was seriously deliberated. All the members
noted that the Jamia Millia Islamia is a Muslim minority
institution, and special and meaningful efforts are being made
by the University administration to cater to the educational
requirements of women and girls. Parents and guardians are
being convinced of the seriousness pertaining to the various
aspects of security and safety, both physical and psychological,
of the girls on the campus of the Jamia Millia Islamia. It is
with the concerted generation of this sense of security amongst
them that education of girls is getting an impetus. Presence of
any elements, which may in any manner whatsoever, places
the girls/women to a fear psychosis shall be detrimental to the
cause of education. It was felt that allowing the accused any
indulgence, by allowing them in the Campus, shall be
prejudicial to the cause of education of girls. Their presence
shall be a severe setback to the efforts of the University to
have a zero tolerance policy towards incidents of sexual
harassment.
The fact that Delhi Police have decided to file an Appeal
against the judgement of exoneration of the accused, and that
security of women/girls is of prime concern, it was
unanimously decided not to presently interfere with the orders
of suspension of the Applicants. The matter shall be reviewed
once the Appeal (by the Delhi Police) is judicially tested."
5. Admittedly the University, while suspending the petitioners,
chose not to hold an independent inquiry. Since the criminal case in
which the petitioners were prosecuted and registration of which was the
sole basis for suspension of the petitioners has resulted in their acquittal
and the University did not hold an independent inquiry to establish the
guilt attributed to them, there is absolutely no reason why the University
should not reinstate them and should not allow them to pursue their
studies.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the University informs that the
Government of NCT of Delhi is considering challenging the order
passed by the Sessions court before this Court. However, the fact
remains that this judgement came to be passed on 29.7.2013 and the
prescribed period for filing an appeal to this Court has already expired.
In these circumstances, the stand taken by the University cannot at all be
justified.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed
with a direction to the respondent-Jamia Millia Islamia University to
reinstate the petitioners and allow them to pursue their respective studies
in the term in which they were studying at the time they came to be
suspended. It is made clear that the petitioners shall be allowed to
appear in the term examination only if they have complied with all the
rules of the University including the rules relating to attendance,
attending tutorials and viva voce which was in force in the academic
year 2012-2013. If any other formalities are to be completed by the
petitioners for the purpose of their reinstatement the said formalities
shall be completed by 5.12.2013 and in case the petitioners are eligible
to appear in the term examination, admit card will be issued to them on
5.12.2013 itself.
8. The petitioners have given a solemn undertaking to this Court
through their respective counsel that they shall conduct themselves in
the most dignified manner and shall not indulge into any such act which
would constitute indiscipline or which would contravene any of the
rules of the University. If there is any breach of this undertaking the
University is expected to take stern action against such of the
petitioner(s) who is/are found in breach of the undertaking, in
accordance with law.
No orders as to costs.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
DECEMBER 03, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
