The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday permitted the withdrawal of a writ petition filed by a final-year law student challenging her six-month suspension from an elite Nagpur-based law university, after the Court declined to grant interim relief. The student was suspended following her alleged association with Rejas Sydeek, recently arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for suspected Urban Naxal links.
The student was suspended on May 10, 2025, by the university's campus disciplinary committee after she was reportedly found in a hotel room with Sydeek, who is presently in the custody of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad. The suspension order also cited her social media posts, including one that appeared to question the government’s stance on ‘Operation Sindoor’. Pursuant to the suspension, she was debarred from all academic and non-academic activities. The student filed a writ petition seeking urgent relief, arguing the suspension during ongoing semester examinations amounted to academic prejudice.
Advocate Raju Kadu, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the disciplinary action was in breach of the principles of natural justice and violated the code of conduct regulations laid down by the university. He further asserted that suspending the student amidst examinations inflicted disproportionate academic consequences.
Opposing the plea, university counsel Kuldeep Mahalle maintained that the inquiry process had been conducted in accordance with procedural safeguards. He submitted that the student had been duly informed of the inquiry’s conclusion on May 23, following its completion on May 22.
Additional Government Pleader Sangeeta Jachak, representing the State and the Lakadganj Police, argued that the issue was administrative in nature and did not warrant judicial interference at this stage.
Justice Pravind Patil, presiding over the matter, took note of the university’s May 23 communication conveying the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court recorded that “since the petitioner has opted to pursue the statutory appeal, the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn to prosecute the appeal before the competent authority.” The Court further declined to intervene in the matter, stating that the suspension was “an administrative action beyond judicial interference at this stage.”
It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the petitioner had already invoked Clause 5.2 of the university’s redressal of grievances rules and filed a statutory appeal. Advocate Kadu confirmed that the appeal was pending consideration.
In light of the petitioner's decision to pursue the alternate statutory remedy, the High Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition and refused to grant interim relief. The bench reiterated its earlier position, as expressed by Justice Rohit Joshi on May 17, that judicial intervention was unwarranted at this juncture given the administrative nature of the suspension. The Court recorded that, subject to the outcome of her appeal, the university had undertaken to allow the petitioner to appear for special examinations before the declaration of results in early July.
Picture Source :
