by BK Manish.If no aspect of justice; social, economic or political, is possible without law, it is strange that in the extended debate on Rohith Vemula’s suicide, legal analysis has been given a go-by..Keeping aside conflicting versions, the verified or uncontroverted facts on causes and responses in this episode are as follows:.An ABVP leader, Susheel, expressed his objection to the protest of members of Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA) through a provocative one-line Facebook post. Past midnight on August, 3 2015, some 30 ASA members accosted Susheel in the hostel and extracted a written apology from him, which he scribbled in the security cabin. Soon after this, Susheel asked for a relative to pick him up and left the campus..On the morning of August 4, Susheel lodged a complaint of assault at Gachibowli Police Station and got admitted in a hospital. These incidents were brought to the notice of the Hyderabad Central University administration and inquiries began. The University’s Proctorial Board concluded, in a note dated August 12, that the testimonies gathered so far do not support the allegation that ASA group had assaulted Susheel. On the same day, the University Vice Chancellor, who had along with Medical Officer visited Susheel in hospital, ordered his testimony also to be recorded. Meanwhile, Susheel’s father approached the High Court and also some politicians seeking justice..On August 17, Union Minister Bandaru Dattatreya wrote a letter to the MoHRD on this issue, which was duly forwarded to the HCU. The Proctorial Board submitted a final report on August 31 in which it concluded, on the basis of testimony of Susheel, two of his un-named friends, and staff members, that the ASA group along with an outsider (former student) had assaulted and hurt Susheel. Besides suggesting some strictures on students’ associations in general, this report recommended that all University facilities be withdrawn from four students for the semester..On September 3, a reminder letter seeking the reporting of facts by a joint secretary in the MoHRD was sent, and four days later, the Executive Council deliberated the matter. The next day, suspension orders were issued against the four students. One of these four students was Rohith Vemula..The ASA General Secretary presented a written representation demanding the recording of the testimonials of other witnesses by a separate inquiry committee. The Vice Chancellor accordingly revoked the suspension on September 11, and on September 15 assigned a sub-committee of the Executive Council under Prof. Vipin Saxena to inquire into the matter..Repeated reminder letters seeking facts were sent from September 24 to November 19. On November 23-24 the sub-committee conducted inquiries and heard testimonies of various people. The sub-committee concluded with a resolution restricting the access and participation of those four students to studies and research facilities, while also withholding hostel facilities. The Registrar and Warden issued orders for vacating the hostel on 16th and 17th of December respectively. On January 4, these four students began a sit-in protest, and on January 17, Rohith hanged himself in a hostel room from a fan using an ASA flag..The next day an FIR was lodged on behalf of Rohith and friends alleging abetment of suicide and three different subsections relating to false testimony and insult or intimidation of Dalits under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989..This particular initiative has given prominence to legal aspects although both, heavy and comparatively light, punitive actions of the HCU were taken expressly subject to outcome of pending criminal inquiry and a writ petition in the High Court..These legal processes need to be utilised to introduce some objectivity in political protests, which would and should continue. Unfortunately while considerable energy has been spent on highlighting controversial facts, established and uncontroverted facts were ignored. No official document released by the JAC mentions the background or process of withholding Rohith’s scholarship. Until then it has to be assumed that this is to be attributed to the countrywide malady of extremely delayed delivery of scholarships and stipend. Exploration in the light of available documents is thus limited to legal inquiry in withdrawal of hostel and non-study common facilities from Rohith and his friends..Since the altercation took place past-midnight, over a Facebook post pertaining to earlier events, the question of provocation and background loses legal significance, since a direct and inevitable qualifier is gone. In the middle of the night, a written apology was demanded and extracted from a person by a large mob, as stated by security officer next day in his first deposition. This apology was ‘demanded’ without allowing the option to decline this demand, as is clear from the use of words ‘brought’ and ‘forced’ in the aforesaid deposition..These acts constitute the offences of wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code. There is no suggestion that Susheel had come out of his room on his own, but there is no unbiased witness either that the ASA group had confronted him at the door of his room. But in view of foregoing conclusion on two offences and timing, a reasonable person might also hold the ASA group responsible for committing the offence of trespass. It is strongly contended by the ASA group that neither did they beat up Susheel, nor did he suffer any major injury. There is no conclusive evidence or unbiased witness on this since the Security Officer arrived on the scene when the altercation had already reached the point of requiring external intervention..It has been ignored that the complaint of Susheel does not depend on verification of any major injury either; there’re no allegation of causing grievous hurt or attempt to murder. The relevant charge in the FIR is voluntarily causing hurt, which is prima facie correct because the bruise mark on his shoulder, reported by attending doctor meets the definition of “hurt”. The charge of Wrongful Assembly and Rioting are common charges that police is in a bad habit of routinely applying in any incident but circumstances in this case squarely meet the standard IPC definitions..Then comes the question of procedural justice. The spartan language of letters from MoHRD (did not even use standard instruction- take appropriate action and keep this office informed) and the chronology of HCU disciplinary actions rule out any inference of undue influence or coercive action. Every crucial step in the chain of events at HCU appears to be in logical progression without any abrupt twist and is therefore non-arbitrary and fair..Now, the inaction of the EC sub-committee between September 15 and November 23 can and will be questioned, especially since four reminders were sent in this duration but the time-interval compared to similar instances elsewhere is not so unusual as to raise stink of mala fides. The Chief Proctor did not commit any illegality in his reports dated August 12 and August 31; biases and tendencies of all concerned person can be speculated upon but in this particular instance legal infirmity is absent, due to elements of increment and even-handedness in disparaging remarks in final report..It may be argued that the impact of the final report of the Chief Proctor is much harsher on ASA than on the ABVP leader. In determining underlying motives it must be kept in mind that while the approach of Susheel towards protests over Yakub Memon’s hanging are probably undemocratic, his actions were within the bounds of democratic norms, university discipline and the law of the land. The ASA failed to be careful on all three counts. Usually it is the ABVP which is found on the wrong side of the fine line of legality. A democrat might have issues with the tonality of language in these reports but this makes it hard to attribute to caste-bias. The language of the EC sub-committee’s report is comparatively more objectionable, and the term ‘not to be seen’ almost belies caste-bias. Incidentally, this probable bias is not accompanied by a general illegality in action. It would have improved the confidence of all if a fresh opportunity was given to various members of ASA to present their version of events, with counter-arguments..Strictly speaking though, the sub-committee fulfilled both the terms mentioned in the order dated 11th Sept. revoking the suspension. It was not a fresh inquiry and internal (disciplinary) inquiries sadly aren’t even governed by specific Acts, rules or guidelines. Violation of Article 14 of Constitution can be alleged but it probably won’t stand scrutiny in courts..Some discretion anyway has to be given to University authorities so as to find solutions; if HCU did not have this discretion, it would be forced to cause the arrest of Rohith and his friends instead of sorting it out in the domain of university-discipline. The alleged expansion of the definition of hostel-expulsion has to be seen in this light. Nothing stopped the ASA members to submit their counter arguments in advance to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration by inquiry committee later but the casual manner in which friends of Rohith responded to the police notice dated August 26, 2015 makes it doubtful if they were keen on it. It is rather amazing that a Ph.D. scholar should write (on November 4, 2015) a sweeping and evasive response without offering any facts or clinching, preemptive arguments for countering, to such a brief and precisely-worded notice..Punitive action for loss of life even in such disturbing episode has to be in accordance with law of the land. In order to convict a person under abetment of suicide there has to be clear mens rea. As was held by the Supreme Court in M. Mohan Vs. State.“It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that s/he committed suicide”.For this purpose it would have to be shown that HCU was aware of clear danger, and that the HCU treated Rohith any differently from his surviving friends. Neither of this is prima facie the case; since the suicide of Rohith one whole month after removal from hostel shocked even his friends, and the order alleged to be the cause was common for all four students. This might be a shocking or disturbing rationale but this has to prevail to maintain Rule of Law..As pointed out earlier, since the specific charges levelled by Susheel are prima facie clear and strong there is no case for invoking provisions of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Had the police official not mentioned specific sections of IPC in the notice sent to four students, there would still be a slim chance for this..Indeed the whole struggle began on the question of freedom of speech. Both the student associations need to recognize that freedom of speech and expression can not be actualized unless we are willing to tolerate and deliberate-upon what is primarily unpalatable to us. The key is to engage instead of antagonize, against all impulses. Only then will the country begin to learn to listen to the unheard, to alter one’s own coded responses. That is the only path to equality and egalitarianism..(The views expressed above are the author’s and do not neccessarily reflect those of Bar & Bench).B. K. Manish is a freelance law-researcher. The author records his appreciation of his virtual co-author, a Ph. D. candidate from Dalit community registered at a centre in JNU-Delhi, who sorted the documents released by Joint Action Committee but later chose not to be recognized. He can be contacted at cgtribal@yahoo.in.
by BK Manish.If no aspect of justice; social, economic or political, is possible without law, it is strange that in the extended debate on Rohith Vemula’s suicide, legal analysis has been given a go-by..Keeping aside conflicting versions, the verified or uncontroverted facts on causes and responses in this episode are as follows:.An ABVP leader, Susheel, expressed his objection to the protest of members of Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA) through a provocative one-line Facebook post. Past midnight on August, 3 2015, some 30 ASA members accosted Susheel in the hostel and extracted a written apology from him, which he scribbled in the security cabin. Soon after this, Susheel asked for a relative to pick him up and left the campus..On the morning of August 4, Susheel lodged a complaint of assault at Gachibowli Police Station and got admitted in a hospital. These incidents were brought to the notice of the Hyderabad Central University administration and inquiries began. The University’s Proctorial Board concluded, in a note dated August 12, that the testimonies gathered so far do not support the allegation that ASA group had assaulted Susheel. On the same day, the University Vice Chancellor, who had along with Medical Officer visited Susheel in hospital, ordered his testimony also to be recorded. Meanwhile, Susheel’s father approached the High Court and also some politicians seeking justice..On August 17, Union Minister Bandaru Dattatreya wrote a letter to the MoHRD on this issue, which was duly forwarded to the HCU. The Proctorial Board submitted a final report on August 31 in which it concluded, on the basis of testimony of Susheel, two of his un-named friends, and staff members, that the ASA group along with an outsider (former student) had assaulted and hurt Susheel. Besides suggesting some strictures on students’ associations in general, this report recommended that all University facilities be withdrawn from four students for the semester..On September 3, a reminder letter seeking the reporting of facts by a joint secretary in the MoHRD was sent, and four days later, the Executive Council deliberated the matter. The next day, suspension orders were issued against the four students. One of these four students was Rohith Vemula..The ASA General Secretary presented a written representation demanding the recording of the testimonials of other witnesses by a separate inquiry committee. The Vice Chancellor accordingly revoked the suspension on September 11, and on September 15 assigned a sub-committee of the Executive Council under Prof. Vipin Saxena to inquire into the matter..Repeated reminder letters seeking facts were sent from September 24 to November 19. On November 23-24 the sub-committee conducted inquiries and heard testimonies of various people. The sub-committee concluded with a resolution restricting the access and participation of those four students to studies and research facilities, while also withholding hostel facilities. The Registrar and Warden issued orders for vacating the hostel on 16th and 17th of December respectively. On January 4, these four students began a sit-in protest, and on January 17, Rohith hanged himself in a hostel room from a fan using an ASA flag..The next day an FIR was lodged on behalf of Rohith and friends alleging abetment of suicide and three different subsections relating to false testimony and insult or intimidation of Dalits under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989..This particular initiative has given prominence to legal aspects although both, heavy and comparatively light, punitive actions of the HCU were taken expressly subject to outcome of pending criminal inquiry and a writ petition in the High Court..These legal processes need to be utilised to introduce some objectivity in political protests, which would and should continue. Unfortunately while considerable energy has been spent on highlighting controversial facts, established and uncontroverted facts were ignored. No official document released by the JAC mentions the background or process of withholding Rohith’s scholarship. Until then it has to be assumed that this is to be attributed to the countrywide malady of extremely delayed delivery of scholarships and stipend. Exploration in the light of available documents is thus limited to legal inquiry in withdrawal of hostel and non-study common facilities from Rohith and his friends..Since the altercation took place past-midnight, over a Facebook post pertaining to earlier events, the question of provocation and background loses legal significance, since a direct and inevitable qualifier is gone. In the middle of the night, a written apology was demanded and extracted from a person by a large mob, as stated by security officer next day in his first deposition. This apology was ‘demanded’ without allowing the option to decline this demand, as is clear from the use of words ‘brought’ and ‘forced’ in the aforesaid deposition..These acts constitute the offences of wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code. There is no suggestion that Susheel had come out of his room on his own, but there is no unbiased witness either that the ASA group had confronted him at the door of his room. But in view of foregoing conclusion on two offences and timing, a reasonable person might also hold the ASA group responsible for committing the offence of trespass. It is strongly contended by the ASA group that neither did they beat up Susheel, nor did he suffer any major injury. There is no conclusive evidence or unbiased witness on this since the Security Officer arrived on the scene when the altercation had already reached the point of requiring external intervention..It has been ignored that the complaint of Susheel does not depend on verification of any major injury either; there’re no allegation of causing grievous hurt or attempt to murder. The relevant charge in the FIR is voluntarily causing hurt, which is prima facie correct because the bruise mark on his shoulder, reported by attending doctor meets the definition of “hurt”. The charge of Wrongful Assembly and Rioting are common charges that police is in a bad habit of routinely applying in any incident but circumstances in this case squarely meet the standard IPC definitions..Then comes the question of procedural justice. The spartan language of letters from MoHRD (did not even use standard instruction- take appropriate action and keep this office informed) and the chronology of HCU disciplinary actions rule out any inference of undue influence or coercive action. Every crucial step in the chain of events at HCU appears to be in logical progression without any abrupt twist and is therefore non-arbitrary and fair..Now, the inaction of the EC sub-committee between September 15 and November 23 can and will be questioned, especially since four reminders were sent in this duration but the time-interval compared to similar instances elsewhere is not so unusual as to raise stink of mala fides. The Chief Proctor did not commit any illegality in his reports dated August 12 and August 31; biases and tendencies of all concerned person can be speculated upon but in this particular instance legal infirmity is absent, due to elements of increment and even-handedness in disparaging remarks in final report..It may be argued that the impact of the final report of the Chief Proctor is much harsher on ASA than on the ABVP leader. In determining underlying motives it must be kept in mind that while the approach of Susheel towards protests over Yakub Memon’s hanging are probably undemocratic, his actions were within the bounds of democratic norms, university discipline and the law of the land. The ASA failed to be careful on all three counts. Usually it is the ABVP which is found on the wrong side of the fine line of legality. A democrat might have issues with the tonality of language in these reports but this makes it hard to attribute to caste-bias. The language of the EC sub-committee’s report is comparatively more objectionable, and the term ‘not to be seen’ almost belies caste-bias. Incidentally, this probable bias is not accompanied by a general illegality in action. It would have improved the confidence of all if a fresh opportunity was given to various members of ASA to present their version of events, with counter-arguments..Strictly speaking though, the sub-committee fulfilled both the terms mentioned in the order dated 11th Sept. revoking the suspension. It was not a fresh inquiry and internal (disciplinary) inquiries sadly aren’t even governed by specific Acts, rules or guidelines. Violation of Article 14 of Constitution can be alleged but it probably won’t stand scrutiny in courts..Some discretion anyway has to be given to University authorities so as to find solutions; if HCU did not have this discretion, it would be forced to cause the arrest of Rohith and his friends instead of sorting it out in the domain of university-discipline. The alleged expansion of the definition of hostel-expulsion has to be seen in this light. Nothing stopped the ASA members to submit their counter arguments in advance to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration by inquiry committee later but the casual manner in which friends of Rohith responded to the police notice dated August 26, 2015 makes it doubtful if they were keen on it. It is rather amazing that a Ph.D. scholar should write (on November 4, 2015) a sweeping and evasive response without offering any facts or clinching, preemptive arguments for countering, to such a brief and precisely-worded notice..Punitive action for loss of life even in such disturbing episode has to be in accordance with law of the land. In order to convict a person under abetment of suicide there has to be clear mens rea. As was held by the Supreme Court in M. Mohan Vs. State.“It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that s/he committed suicide”.For this purpose it would have to be shown that HCU was aware of clear danger, and that the HCU treated Rohith any differently from his surviving friends. Neither of this is prima facie the case; since the suicide of Rohith one whole month after removal from hostel shocked even his friends, and the order alleged to be the cause was common for all four students. This might be a shocking or disturbing rationale but this has to prevail to maintain Rule of Law..As pointed out earlier, since the specific charges levelled by Susheel are prima facie clear and strong there is no case for invoking provisions of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Had the police official not mentioned specific sections of IPC in the notice sent to four students, there would still be a slim chance for this..Indeed the whole struggle began on the question of freedom of speech. Both the student associations need to recognize that freedom of speech and expression can not be actualized unless we are willing to tolerate and deliberate-upon what is primarily unpalatable to us. The key is to engage instead of antagonize, against all impulses. Only then will the country begin to learn to listen to the unheard, to alter one’s own coded responses. That is the only path to equality and egalitarianism..(The views expressed above are the author’s and do not neccessarily reflect those of Bar & Bench).B. K. Manish is a freelance law-researcher. The author records his appreciation of his virtual co-author, a Ph. D. candidate from Dalit community registered at a centre in JNU-Delhi, who sorted the documents released by Joint Action Committee but later chose not to be recognized. He can be contacted at cgtribal@yahoo.in.
