Allahabad HC bats for reform over punishment in disciplining delinquent University students [Read Judgment]

The Allahabad High Court recently batted for adopting reform, self-development and rehabilitation oriented approaches in dealing with delinquent University students, instead of focusing solely on punitive consequences/punishment. The judgment passed by Justice Ajay Bhanot highlights,.“Statutory regimes in universities, dealing with delinquent behaviour and university environments, which are bereft of therapeutic and reform based support systems, are incompatible with the constitutional mandate to uphold human dignity… Punishment has to be effective to serve its purpose; however, it cannot be purblind to human dignity, if it is to retain its constitutionality.”.The ruling was passed while quashing the suspension of a student by the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) on account of an FIR registered against him for physically attacking and passing derogatory caste remarks against a teacher. The case also prompted the High Court to issue directions for the setting up of self-development/rehabilitation programmes in BHU for the benefit of delinquent students..University’s power of suspension cannot be invoked mechanically on mere registration of FIR against student.While the Court observed that violence in the University campus against a teacher cannot be justified under any circumstances, it proceeded to elaborate why the registration of an FIR should not automatically lead to the suspension of a University student. Firstly, the Court noted that the BHU rules only call for the suspension of a student when he stands accused of an offence involving moral turpitude or a heinous crime. The Court thus pointed out,.“Lodgement of an F.I.R. for any criminal offence, does not automatically lead to a suspension under the aforesaid provision. The intention of the legislature is not far to seek. Lodgement of false criminal cases is not uncommon in the country. Further criminal trials take an inordinately long time to conclude. No terminal date can be set once criminal proceedings are set in motion..In this case, the Court further found that the authority had not even examined if the student stood accused of any such offence. Therefore, it quashed the order as arbitrary and having been passed without application of mind. Notably, it went on to add,.“Mechanical exercise of the power of suspension upon mere lodgement of a criminal case will lead to unintended consequences. On many occasions, it would lead to an indefinite suspension and denial of opportunities of education. At times causing a stigma, without any enquiry.”.It also took note that the indefinite suspension of the student was disproportionate, more so given the factual circumstances in which the attack is alleged to have taken place. The Court ruled,.“The suspension of the petitioner from the university, for an undefined or indefinite period, is an action of extreme severity. It is a de-facto expulsion from the university. These actions carry drastic penal consequences for the students. Denial of education to a soul, in quest of knowledge is the severest form of restriction. Moreover, the instigatory role of the Professor Y in causing the incident, has not been factored into the decision.“.It was, however, clarified that the present ruling would not have any bearing on the criminal case proceedings pending against the student..“The quashing of the impugned order, does not in any manner exonerate the petitioner of his guilt. Nor does it preempt the regular enquiry into the misconduct. The law shall take its course, unhindered by any observation made in this judgement. .Absence of reform-oriented measures have serious Constitutional implications.Justice Bhanot went on to raise concern over the sole focus on punishment and punitive responses when it comes to dealing with delinquent University students. The judge examined the disciplinary rules in three universities including BHU to find that the statutes of all the three universities contemplate only penal action, to deal with all forms of indiscipline. In this backdrop, he observed,.“Absence of any reform and rehabilitative measures, in the administrative and legal frameworks of the universities, has serious legal and constitutional implications … The statutory monopoly of a punitive approach, to deviant behaviour, and the exclusion of all other responses, often creates a lack of balance in the actions of the concerned University. In such cases, the punishment becomes disproportionate, not because the decision maker was incapable of measured action, but because the ordinances/statutes preclude a proportional response.”.Violation of right to dignity .The Court pointed out that such a solely punitive approach in disciplining students would violate the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was emphasised that in dealing with delinquent students, the University should consider their susceptibility to reform. In this regard, the Court observes, .“Punishment for deviant conduct, cannot be so severe as to degrade human life… The degrading or dehumanizing elements of the punishment have to be eliminated to bring it in conformity with the requirement of human dignity, contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India..… Failure to consider susceptibility to reform, while denying the right to access privileges and activities of the university, negates the possibility of rehabilitation. Absence of an environment of reform, self-development and rehabilitation in a university, denies the opportunity of redeeming one’s reputation. Termination of dialogue with the delinquent student, without offering an opportunity to reform, makes him an outcaste. The individual is permanently discarded by the institution, and loss of human self worth is total. This system of punishment is destructive of fundamental elements of human dignity, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” .Exclusion from higher education.The Court proceeded to note that focusing on punishment alone would inevitably also lead the student being excluded from availing higher education. The counter-productive consequences that would follow is explained thus..“Education is the most credible and effective mode of restoring self-esteem and enhancing self-worth. By denying opportunities of education to a delinquent student, without looking at the possibility of reform, the power to redeem one’s errors and enhance self-worth is taken away from an individual. In these cases, closure of avenues of education, extinguishes the hope for a better tomorrow. Loss of hope and its sequitor perpetual condemnation are fatal blows to the human spirit and self esteem.” .The Court further emphasised,.“Acts of deviant conduct, violence or intimidation, do not cease the need for social engagement or knowledge. Such needs are more acutely felt and require satisfaction in these cases. Order may be enforced by punishments. Causes of deviant conduct can be addressed only by engagement. Punishments deal with the offence, reform deals with the offender.“.Role of the University goes beyond punishing delinquent students.The Court also observed that the University would be failing in its role as a paternal institution if it abandons its ward by an act of suspension of debarment. In this regard, it has been observed,.“University is a paternal institution. By the act of suspension or debarment of a delinquent student, the university abandons its ward. The university has solved its problem, but the society has one at its hands. The downstream effects of the punishments, have not been considered by the respondents ….… The role of the University does not end in punishing perpetrators of violence. It begins with the identification of the causes of violence, communal hatred, and other forms of deviant conduct. Thereafter the responsibility to achieve behavioral change commences. The fruit of knowledge imparted by the universities lies in the manifestation of human values in the human personality and expression of humanity in human conduct. Knowledge which does not change human behaviour in this manner is futile.“.Establish Reform, Self-Development and Rehabilitative Programmes to address delinquent behaviour.In view of the above observations, the Court proceeded to direct the establishment of structured reform/self-development programmes for University students, opining that such programmes could be catalysts for inducing behavioral change, and inculcating a constitutional value system in students..“A successful reform, self-development & rehabilitation programme can convert a possible danger into a real asset for the society”, the Judge observed..To this end, the Court proceeded to issue various directions, including the following, to set up such a programme at BHU..The University shall create a reform, self-development and rehabilitation programme, for students accused of misconduct and against whom disciplinary action or any action to deny facilities of the university is proposed or taken;The reform, self-development and rehabilitation programme should be created after wide consultations and workshops with institutions of higher learning and research, universities, experts, student counsellors/psychologists, psychiatrists, students and other stakeholders;The University Grants Commission and the Union MHRD Department should support and aid the process.The reform, self-development and rehabilitation programmes are to be integrated into the existing legal/statutory framework of the University dealing with deviant conduct and punishments.The exercise shall be completed, preferably, within six months, but not later than 12 months. At all times the respondents, keeping in mind the best interests of the students and the society, shall make all efforts to expedite the compliance of the directions. It shall be open to the respondents to create a scheme for reform, self-development and rehabilitation for convicts in criminal cases who wish to pursue further higher studies in the respondent University..It was also ordered that the petitioner-student mandatorily attend such a reform/self-development programme, following which an evaluation report on him is to be prepared. Further, that after the creation of the programme, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as a student and permitted to continue his PhD course or any other course along with the said programme..The Court has, however, cautioned that the establishment of such a programme will not denude the University’s other disciplinary powers..“The start of reform programme does not inevitably mean a free access to, or unconditional reinstatement of a delinquent student into the university campus. In cases of indiscipline where presence of individuals poses a threat of breakdown of order in the university campus, a decision can be made only by the university. Even when such students undergo a reform programme, and the students are pursuing their academic studies, the university may impose restraints it deems fit.”.Accordingly, even in the petitioners’ case, the Court clarified that,.“It shall be open to the BHU to impose necessary restraints, as it deems fit, upon the petitioner even as he pursues his academic course along with the reform, self-development and rehabilitation programme. These restraints may include a campus entry ban upon the petitioner, if the University deems it necessary.”.[Read the Judgment]