Bombay High Court
Ramadas Ks vs Tata Institute Of Social Sciences on 12 March, 2025
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-OS:4074-DB
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3359 OF 2024
Ramadas KS, )
Occaption: Student )
Indian National, Age : 30 years)
Kizhakkekara House, Adlaid, )
Puzhamudi PO, Kalpetta, )
Wayanad, Kerala-673121 ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Tata Institute of Social Sciences)
Through its Registrar, )
V.N. Purav Marg, Deonar, )
Mumbai 400 088 )
2. University Grants Commission )
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, )
New Delhi 110 002 )
3. Union of India )
Through the Ministry of Social )
Justice and Empowerment, )
Government of India )
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi )
New Delhi-110001 )
4. National Scheduled Castes )
Finance and Development )
Corporation )
14th Floor Scope Minar, )
Core '1' & '2', North Tower, )
Laxmi Nagar District Centre, )
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 ) ...Respondents
***
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate i/b Ms. Rishika Agarwal & Ms. Lara
Jasani, Advocates for Petitioner.
Husen 1/24
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Pandey a/w. Mr. Madhur Rai, Mr. Sachin Kanse, Mr.
Ashish Kanojia, Mr. Yogesh Mishra & Ms. Sneha Nandgaokar i/b PRS
Legal, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1 - TISS.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Ms. Shilpa Kapil, Advocate for Respondent No.3-UOI.
***
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24TH JANUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12TH MARCH, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per M.M. Sathaye, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner, a Ph.D. student of 30 years of age, studying in Respondent
No.1 Institute (‘TISS’, for short) is challenging the report dated
17.04.2024 of the Empowered Committee constituted by Respondent
No. 1 Institute and also challenging the suspension letter dated
18.04.2024 issued to him by Respondent No.1 – Institute, in pursuance
of inquiry in respect of a show cause notice dated 07.03.2024 issued by
Respondent No.1 – Institute. A direction is sought to Respondent No.1 to
revoke the suspension and to restore Petitioner’s entitlements as a
student. Direction is further sought to Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to ensure
continuation and monthly disbursement and payment of NFSC
fellowship of the Petitioner. Also a consequent direction is sought to
Respondent No.1 to take back its Public Notice dated 20.04.2024 issued
Husen 2/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
against the Petitioner.
3. During pendency of the petition, on 09.07.2024, without
prejudice to the contentions of Respondent No.1, it was directed that if
the Petitioner’s Guide is satisfied and recommends renewal of the
Petitioner’s fellowship, Respondent No.1 was directed to upload
relevant documents. This exercise is made subject to outcome of the
petition and it is further directed that the Petitioner shall not claim any
equity in that regard.
CASE AND SUBMISSIONS
4. In 2015, the Petitioner first enrolled with Respondent No.1 for a
Masters degree in the course Media and Cultural Studies. The Petitioner
was awarded scholarship from Respondent No.3. In 2017, the Petitioner
got enrolled in the integrated M.Phil. and Ph.D. course in Development
Studies, however, he deferred the same by a year and got enrolled in
2018 batch. The Petitioner successfully finished M.Phil. decree in 2021.
On 08.02.2023, the Petitioner was awarded National Fellowship in
Scheduled Caste by Respondent No.3 in view of his performance in
UGC-NET examination. On 21.04.2023, Petitioner received a show
cause notice in respect of a protest by the Petitioner and other students
on 21.03.2023 since they were denied permission to hold a guest
lecture on the occasion of late Bhagat Singh’s 92 nd death anniversary.
On 27.04.2023, the Petitioner replied to the show cause notice stating
inter alia his version of peaceful protest led outside the Director’s
bungalow on 21.03.2023. On 14.06.2023, Respondent No.1 released a
circular by which students were informed that propagating their
personal views as views of the Institute would lead violation of Clause
20 of the Student Code of Conduct as well as Clause 9 of the Honour
Husen 3/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
Code applicable to students. On 11.01.2024, Respondent No.1 –
Institute issued a public declaration clarifying its non involvement in the
demonstration called the ‘Parliament march’. On 12.01.2024, the
Petitioner attended demonstration called the Parliament March at
Jantar Mantar as a member of Progressive Student’s Forum (PSF). This
demonstration was conducted by United Students of India, which is a
joint platform of 16 student bodies. On 16.01.2024, the Petitioner met
with an accident and underwent a surgery and was hospitalized until
night of 25.01.2024. He was bed ridden thereafter and went to Kerala
for recuperation. The Petitioner did not enter the campus since then. On
07.03.2024, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner alleging
misconduct and anti-national activity. The Petitioner thereafter replied
to the said show cause notice on 20.03.2024 alongwith 5 appendixes.
The Empowered Committee thereafter issued impugned report dated
17.04.2024 and suspended the Petitioner from the Respondent No. 1
Institute for 2 years debarring his entry across all its campuses. In these
circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court with prayers
already indicated above.
5. The Registrar (Officiating) of Respondent No. 1 filed affidavit in
reply dated 18.05.2024 contending inter alia that the Petitioner has
antecedents of indulging in objectionable behaviour. It is contended that
during the very first academic year, the Petitioner’s conduct of using
personal and identity based comments against a fellow student, who
was a cultural secretary of the Institute had resulted into initiation of an
inquiry against the Petitioner and thereafter based on a report
submitted by inquiry committee, a memo was issued on 09.10.2018 to
the Petitioner, calling upon him to tender apology. It is contended that
the Petitioner did not tender written apology as required. It is further
Husen 4/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
contended that a show cause notice was issued to Petitioner on
21.04.2023, on account of Petitioner’s participation in a demonstration
outside the then Director’s bungalow, which is located on the premises
of the institute, without approval of the Institute. It is contended that
after suspension letter was issued to the Petitioner, letters from political
parties, organisations and even member of parliament were received for
revocation of suspension, which shows that the Petitioner was using his
influence and strong political links to pressurize the Institute. It is
further contended that without resorting to remedy of Appeal available
under applicable Rules, this petition is directly filed challenging the
suspension and therefore it is an abuse of process of law. The copy of
the memo issued to the Petitioner and provisions of applicable Rules
under the Handbook, providing for appellate authority, are produced on
record.
6. The Petitioner thereafter filed an affidavit in rejoinder dated
20.05.2024, inter alia contending that the earlier incident mentioned in
the affidavit in reply by the Institute is beyond the scope of show cause
notice, committee report and suspension letter which is impugned in
the present petition. It is contended that no allegation in respect of
earlier incident have been raised during the present proceedings or after
January 2019. it is contended that an effort to prejudice the mind of the
Court is being made. The Petitioner elaborated on the earlier incidents
and justified his stand. He contended that he did not tender an apology
because he was contesting the allegations. He justified the support
received from student bodies, civil society groups and political
organizations and leaders demanding revocation of his suspension. He
contended that the same is only indicative of the overwhelming public
objection to his suspension. He denied using his influence or strong
Husen 5/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
political links to pressurize the Institute. It is contended that when the
Petitioner took admission in the institute in the year 2018-19, the
Handbook of 2016-17 relied upon by the institute was not applicable
and it was not made available to the Petitioner. On this basis, the
objection of the institute about appeal before the director as an
alternative remedy, is opposed. He contended that the present
proceedings are being undertaken under the Handbook of 2023-24. He
contended that the constitution of high-level-committee is entirely
arbitrary and questionable since there is no provision for constituting a
committee of such nature in disciplinary proceedings as per applicable
rules, regulations, and policies of the institute. The petitioner alleged
that the conduct of the institute points at vindictive bias against him.
7. The Deputy Secretary of Respondent No. 2 – University Grants
Commission (“UGC” for short) filed an affidavit-in-reply dated
26.06.2024 taking a stand that Respondent Institute is a Deemed
University and as per applicable regulations i.e. UGC (Institution
Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2023, the Vice-chancellor shall
have all the powers necessary for the proper maintenance of discipline
in the Institute and he or she may delegate any such powers to such
person or persons, as he or she may deem fit. The copy of regulations is
placed on record. It is submitted that in addition to above the
regulations, a mechanism and procedure is provided for redressal of
grievances by Ombudsperson and Student Grievance Redressal
Committees in case of a complaint by the student.
8. The under Secretary at Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India has filed an affidavit-in-reply on
behalf of Respondent No. 3 on 08.07.2024. It is contended that the
Husen 6/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
National Fellowship Scheme for Scheduled Caste Students (“NFS-SCS”
for shot) is a central sector scheme introduced by Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment and its objective is to provide fellowships in
the form of ‘financial assistance’ to students belonging to scheduled
caste category to pursue higher studies, it is submitted that the
institution or college is responsible for updating it on the portal. It is
submitted that under the scheme, the University holds the authority to
confirm and sustain the fellowship and it is within the Institute’s
purview to determine the discontinuation of the scholarship with
designated nodal officer being responsible for disbursement. It is
confirmed that since the Petitioner has been suspended by the institute
for a period of two years, he is not eligible to get fellowship during the
suspension period. It is further placed on record that the fellowship
amount to the Petitioner has been disbursed till May 2024, on the basis
of confirmation by the institute except the month of April 2024, which
could not be disbursed due to non-availability of funds.
9. Pursuant to hearing on 20.08.2024, the Respondent Institute filed
an affidavit on 23.08.2024 contending that the competent authority to
hear the appeal against decision of the committee, has neither
participated nor adjudicated the issues or applied its mind. It is
contended that the high-level committee has acted independently and
has issued the impugned report to the competent authority, who has
merely accepted and accorded its approval as principal executive officer
of the University. It is contended that the acceptance of the report does
not ipso facto mean that competent authority (hearing appeal) has
applied its mind. On this stand, Respondent No. 1 justified its objection
to maintainability of this petition, on the ground that alternative
remedy is available.
Husen 7/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
10. On 30/08/2024, on finding that the Appellate Authority before
whom decision of the Empowered Committee can be challenged, is the
same authority being the Vice Chancellor, who had accepted the
recommendation of the Committee that resulted in suspension of the
Petitioner, it was held that the Petitioner cannot be relegated to invoke
remedy of appeal and therefore this petition was decided to be
entertained.
11. By a further affidavit dated 17.09.2024, Respondent No. 1
Institute placed on record the relevant documents which has been
appreciated by the Committee while giving its decision which is
impugned in the petition. The Petitioner thereafter filed an affidavit in
rejoinder dated 27.11.2024, dealing with the said affidavit and
documents produced on record thereunder. He contended that except
for Annexures 1, 17 and 18 produced along with said affidavit, rest of
the documents are completely new and previously undisclosed. He
however dealt with Annexure 4 and 5 on merits. He denied having
circulated the document at Annexure No. 4, which is a screenshot of a
WhatsApp message apparently forwarded by PSF-TISS. He also
contended that he is not aware of the document at Annexure No. 5 and
that he is not creator of the said document. It is contented that
Petitioner has neither created nor shared nor posted the poster on any
social media platform or otherwise.
12. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai, appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that the impugned committee report proceeds on 2 aspects,
namely participation in Parliament March and posting of pamphlets on
social media sites calling upon to join screening of Ram-Ke-Naam. The
Parliament March pamphlet does not show TISS name. That there wasHusen 8/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.docno march as such, and the protest was conducted at Jantar Mantar with
police permission. He submitted that there was no violence or
disturbance at the said march. He submitted that the protest was
conducted in a public place which was permitted and overseen by police
authorities, and there is no report of any crime being committed. About
the aspect of Ram-Ke-Naam screening, he submitted that the said
documentary film is not banned. He submitted that in the committee
that conducted the enquiry, only Dean, students affair is common as
compared to the empowered committee provided under rules, and if
empowered committee was already in place, there was no need of
constituting a high power committee. He further submitted that Clause
20 of the Code of Conduct is applicable only to faculty members and
cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner as he is a student. He
submitted that Petitioner being a Ph.D. student, he is not required to
take permission for leave. He submitted that in the report of the
Committee, a new Clause 2.2 of the Code of Conduct was added and
considered, about which show cause notice is silent.
13. Learned Counsel Mr. Pandey appearing for the Respondent-
Institute submitted that the Institute does not take action unless it is
absolutely necessary. He submitted that the Petitioner has not come to
the Court with clean hands. Inviting this Court’s attention to reply filed
by the Petitioner to the show-cause notice, it is submitted that the
Petitioner has admitted that in the demonstration at New Delhi, the
word “TISS” was mentioned alongwith the abbreviation of PSF on one
poster to show that the protesting students were from student group of
TISS. He submitted that therefore the name of the Institute was used by
the Petitioner in a demonstration, which was clearly politically
motivated. He submitted that alongwith reply, the Petitioner hasHusen 9/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.docproduced Appendix-5 which is his reply given during the earlier
incident of March 2023, where he has admitted that he had participated
in the gathering outside Director’s bungalow. He submitted that under
Circular dated 14/06/2023, the Institute had drawn attention of the
students to Clause 20 of the Code of Conduct, which requires everyone
to direct all questions or requests for information from media or
reporters to the Registrar or Deputy Director or Director of the institute
for the purpose of consistency and accuracy of information. He
submitted that under the said Circular it was clearly informed to the
students that expressing and promoting their personal views, comments
and or observation on any media platform, while identifying them as
TISS student or associating those views with TISS in any form is strictly
prohibited. He submitted that the said Circular had clarified that any
student breaching this policy will invite strict action and such behaviour
will be recorded as bad behaviour in the Institute’s records and which
may affect the concerned student’s academic journey. He submitted that
this Circular also informed the students that unauthorised use of
Institute’s name, logo or other identifiers if persists despite the said
Circular, the Institute reserves its right to seek legal recourse.
14. He submitted that in view of this Circular read with the Code of
Conduct, the action of the Petitioner in participating in the Parliament
March with a poster showing name of Respondent-Institute, is clear
breach of applicable Rules and the action of s1997 SCC OnLine Bom
3.uspension is justified. He has also invited attention of the Court to the
provisions regarding discipline under Clause 24 thereof. He submitted
that while entering the Institute, every student is required to sign the
Honour Code. He submitted that the Petitioner is a Ph.D. student who is
supposed to focus on academics, however, he has indulged into acts ofHusen 10/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.docparticipating in political demonstrations and organizing unapproved
events, screenings, holding sit-ins and has therefore committed breach
of various Rules. He submitted that the Petitioner is a student who is
enjoying scholarship in the form of fellowship given by Central
Government, which is given with the object to provide financial
assistance to students belonging to the schedule caste to pursue higher
studies. He submitted that while enjoying such government grants
meant for pursuing studies, the Petitioner has participated in politically
motivated protests, using the name of the Respondent-Institute, which
is clearly breach of applicable Rules. Drawing attention of the Court to
the pamphlet of ‘Parliament March’ and its wording he submitted that
the said pamphlet says “Save India, Reject BJP” and therefore, it was
obviously a march which was politically motivated and even if the
Petitioner had any personal views opposing a particular political
ideology, he could not have used the name of TISS on a placard or a
poster, which is admittedly used. Inviting this Court’s attention to email
communication between the Director of the Institute and its security
agency, he highlighted the security problem the Institute had faced in
January 2023.
15. In rejoinder, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner
reiterated his arguments made earlier and further submitted that the
documents relied upon by the institute under affidavit dated
17.09.2024 were not made available to the Petitioner, except those
which are admitted in affidavit in rejoinder. He submitted that no
personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. He submitted that this
Court has power to modify the suspension order and is empowered in a
fit case to do what the committee ought to have done. He lastly
submitted that the punishment of suspension for two years isHusen 11/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.docdisproportionate. Mr. Desai relied upon following judgments in support
of his case :
i. Shri Anand Patwardhan Vs. The Union of India & Anr. 1997
SCC OnLine Bom 3.
ii. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs. Union of India and Anr.
(2018) 17 SCC 324.
iii. Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Criminal Writ Petition No. 223 of 2020) dated 13.02.2020.
iv. Javed Ahmad Hajam Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
(2024) 4 SCC 156.
v. ‘X’ Vs. Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai and Ors.
(Bombay High Court WP (L) No.21030 of 2024 Ord. dt. 10 th
October 2024).
16. Mr. Rodrigues appearing for the Respondent No. 2-UGC has
submitted that the Respondent No. 1-Institute is a Deemed University,
which is governed by the said Regulations of 2023 and ultimately it is
for the Institute to take appropriate decision whether a given student is
crossing the line of freedom of speech and expression within the
applicable set of Rules about Code of Conduct.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
17. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
record. Before proceeding to deal with facts of this case, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the applicable Rules, which admittedly govern
the parties in the present case, they being the Code of Conduct, the
Circular dated 14/06/2023 and the Honor Code for academic year
2023-24.
18. Perusal of the Code of Conduct shows that in its opening
paragraph it is made applicable to student as well. The opening
Husen 12/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
paragraph of the Code of Conduct reads as under:
“The TISS Code of Conduct provides the standards by which
the Institute’s faculty, administrators, staff and students
should conduct themselves. The Institute aims to foster the
highest possible ethical standards in the interaction of its
faculty, administrators, staff and students with each other, and
with customers, suppliers, regulators and the community at
large. The code of conduct is a guide to provide direction to
its faculty, administrators, staff and students in using the
principles of ethical conduct as a foundation for behaviour.”
19. Clause 24 of the said Code of Conduct provides as under:
“24.0 DISCIPLINE
Discipline will be promptly and consistently applied to serve as
notice that there are serious consequences for intentional
wrongdoing and to demonstrate that TISS is committed to
integrity as a core part of its culture. TISS believes that
application of discipline for a violation of our ethical standards
should be prompt and must be appropriate. Therefore, the
Institute will weigh all mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
including whether the violation was intentional or inadvertent,
the extent of the likely damage to the Institute resulting from the
violation and whether the offending person has committed
previous violations of this code or other Institute policy
concerning ethical behaviour.
Staff and faculty members using students for creating
disturbances, and indiscipline will face serious action. Using
students to play divisive and obstructive activities is a serious
crime.
Violation will be marked and memo will be given by the
Registrar. Suitable action will follow. Violation of Institute rules
and norms will be investigated through due process. Extreme
action may include dismissal from service or compulsory
retirement.”
Husen 13/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
20. Clauses 9 & 11 of the Honour Code read as under :
“9. I will not malign the name of the institute by presenting
fabricated and falsified views on any platform,
tarnishing/damaging the image of the Institute in public domain
bringing disrepute to the institute.
xxx
11. I will not obstruct the functioning of the Institute, offices,
classes and its activities way of preventing faculty, officers/staff
from discharging their normal duties and enjoying their personal
rights.”
[Emphasis supplied]
21. At the outset, so far as the argument of learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that the material relied upon by the Respondent/Institute
along with its further Affidavit dated 17.09.2024 was not made
available to the Petitioner, we specifically note and record that we are
only considering the documents admitted by the Petitioner under his
affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 27.11.2024 i.e. Annexure – 1 (pamphlet of
Parliament March), Annexure – 17 and 18 (circular dated 14.06.2023
and Honour Code), of which copies are produced on record. We find it
appropriate in our limited wisdom to refer to only these admitted
documents and not other documents relied upon by the Respondent-
Institute, which are denied by the Petitioner. This will save us dealing
with disputed questions of facts.
22. On the insistence of the Petitioner that this Petition is
maintainable and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can consider the impugned report of the Committee and the
impugned decision of suspension, this Court under order dated
Husen 14/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
30/08/2024 rejected the objection of the Respondent-Institute that the
Appellate Forum is available to the Petitioner. We have taken such
decision since we found that the Appellate Authority in the present case
is the same authority who accepted the recommendation of the
Committee to suspend the Petitioner. Therefore, we make it clear that
on Petitioner’s own insistence and accepting his contention about
maintainability of this Petition despite availability of Appellate Forum,
we are looking into admitted factual aspects of the dispute between the
parties and considering the material objectively.
23. Perusal of the show cause notice dated 07.03.2024 indicates that
there are three charges. First, participation in the demonstration outside
Indian Parliament on 12.01.2024 under the banner of organization PSF-
TISS, when the said organization is not recognized by the TISS and has
no connection with any activity of TISS, still the name of the Institute
being misused, creating impression that the views expressed by the
protesters are views of the Institute. Next charge is posting pamphlets
on social media calling upon to join screening of documentary ‘Raam-
Ke-Naam’ on 26/01/2024 as mark of dishonor and protest against the
Ram Mandir inauguration in Ayodhya. Third charge is specifically
referring to the Petitioner’s antecedents and conduct in the past
including the Petitioner holding unauthorized events, demonstrations,
and participating in sit-ins outside Director’s Bungalow, TISS, Mumbai
campus at late night with loud sloganeering. The show cause notice
specifically refers to the conduct of the Petitioner in violation of Clause
9 of the Honor Code, the Circular dated 14.06.2023 and Clause 24 of
the Code of Conduct.
24. It is important to note that the Petitioner has advisedly or in his
Husen 15/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
wisdom or both, in his written reply dated 20.03.2024, has not only
dealt with the charges in respect of participation in the Parliament
March and about screening of documentary ‘Ram-ke-Nam’ but has also
chosen to reply on merits about the allegations about his past conduct.
We therefore specifically note here, that the Petitioner has been given
sufficient notice about his past conduct and he has replied to the same
on merits and as such, the past conduct of the Petitioner is an important
consideration for us, as well, while deciding the legality and
proportionality of the impugned suspension order.
25. Perusal of the reply filed by the Petitioner to the show cause
notice, shows following admissions given by the Petitioner.
(i) That the Petitioner has participated in the demonstration
titled as ‘Parliament March’ in New Delhi on 12.01.2024.
(ii) That the Petitioner attended the protest as Central
Executive Committee Member of Students’ Federation of India
(SFI) as a member of Progressive Student’s Forum (PSF).
(iii) That regarding the demonstration, the word ‘TISS’ was
mentioned along with abbreviation of ‘PSF’ in one poster released
by PSF to show that it was student group from TISS.
It is therefore clear that the Petitioner had participated in
Parliament March, being from the student group of TISS and at that
time the word TISS was mentioned along with abbreviation of PSF in
one of the poster. From the admitted pamphlet of ‘Parliament-March’ it
can be seen that it mentioned ‘Save India, Reject BJP’. It reads as under:
Husen 16/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
“SAVE EDUCATION SAVE INDIA
REJECT NEP REJECT BJP
Parliament March
by ‘United Students of India’
(Joint platform of student organisations in India)
12 January 2024
The attack on quality education in India is scaling dangerous
heights under the current BJP-led union government. The RSS-
backed government not only alms to undermine and dismantle the
public education system but also seeks to replace it with a
communal, destructive scheme that fundamentally contradicts the
constitutional vision of education. The BJP govt, have even
initiated their attempt to remove the name of the country, INDIA
from text books.
The Parliamentary Elections are approaching us in 2024 and 2025
will mark the 100th anniversary of the world’s largest fascist
organization which controls the BJP govt in power. In this context,
we, the undersigned student organisations share our serious
concern and suspect that Sanghparivar forces may escalate their
attacks on the education sector and democratic, secular and
progressive values of our country. Given this challenging backdrop,
it becomes imperative to sustain the momentum of the ongoing
student movements. We, the undersigned 16 student organisations
have decided to come together to form a united student front
named UNITED STUDENTS OF INDIA and join hands in
strengthening the fight to protect the education and employment
sector in India.
In a joint meeting, we have unitedly adopted the slogan, Save
Education, Reject NEP. Save India, Reject BJP. We have decided to
conduct campaigns across the country, hold a joint parliament
march in national capital, Delhi on 12 January 2024, Friday and
United Student Rally in Chennai on 01 February 2024.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
It is therefore clear as sunshine that the said march was politically
motivated, which the Petitioner participated in under the banner PSF-
Husen 17/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
TISS in a student group. Therefore, the finding of the Committee that
the Petitioner created an impression in general public that the politically
motivated protest and views were the views of the
Respondent/institution TISS, is founded on material available on record
and no fault can be found to that extent. This has brought disrepute to
the Institute in its view. Petitioner can have any political view of his
choice, but so does the Institute. The Petitioner has full freedom of
expressing his political view; but to do so under the banner of
Respondent Institute is what is objected to by the Institute. As per
clause (9) of the Honour Code, which is signed by the every student of
the Respondent/Institution, the student undertakes that he will not
malign the name of the Institution by presenting views on any platform,
tarnishing/damaging the name of the institution in public domain.
Therefore the Petitioner has violated the student code.
26. Perusal of the impugned Committee report shows that under
charge no. 3, the contravention with the Code of Conduct by the
Petitioner was considered. Considering that the contravention with the
entire Code of Conduct was under consideration, the argument that the
new Clause 2.2 and Clause 8 are considered, is without merit. In any
case, the said Clauses are not being considered by us while testing the
legality of the impugned report. Bare perusal of the Code of Conduct
shows that in its opening paragraph, the same is made applicable to
students. Clause 24 deals with discipline to be maintained. Considering
the opening paragraph and said Clause, as reproduced above, in the
facts and circumstances narrated above, the finding of the Committee
that the Petitioner has breached the Code of Conduct is clearly
sustainable.
Husen 18/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
27. Now turning to past conduct of the Petitioner. Under clause (11)
of the Honour Code, it is undertaken by the student that he will not
obstruct the functioning of the faculty/officers and staff from
discharging their normal duties and enjoying their personal rights. As
already noted above, the show cause notice clearly put the Petitioner to
notice that the Petitioner’s past conduct was being considered against
him including sit-in outside the Director’s bungalow at late night and
other incidents. The Petitioner knowing fully well that his past conduct
about alleged incidents are under consideration, has replied to the same
on merits.
28. The Petitioner has admitted under Appendix – 5 to his reply to the
show cause notice (page 93 of the petition) that he, alongwith other
four students and other concerned students of PSF and BSML
organisation had gathered outside the Director’s bungalow at 9.30 p.m.
on 22.03.2023. He has also admitted that he had participated in
sloganeering. He has also admitted that there was an over-night
gathering held on 22.03.2023 night on the nearby road side of
Director’s bungalow. This conduct amounts to disturbing the Institute’s
director from enjoying his/her personal life/rights. These admissions
coupled with the fact that the Respondent institute had not initiated any
action against the Petitioner in the past, clearly shows that the
Respondent Institute had taken a lenient view about the Petitioner
because he was a student, keeping in view his future prospects.
However, considering the present subject matter conduct i.e.
participating in politically motivated Parliament March under the
banner of PSF – TISS in the year 2024, the action of the Petitioner was
taken seriously by the Respondent/Institute.
29. Having found that the Petitioner was given sufficient notice on
Husen 19/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
the consideration of past conduct, we do not find any error in the
committee’s decision to consider the past conduct of the Petitioner. It is
settled position of law that in any inquiry, once the delinquent is given
sufficient notice about past conduct or antecedents and opportunity is
given to the reply to the same, the past conduct can be taken as
material consideration while arriving at the quantum of punishment. It
is therefore clear that the institute can consider whether the Petitioner
has committed previous violation of the Code or other policy. In the
present case, the Committee has come to the conclusion of suspension
from the institute for a period of two years barring his entry across all
campus of Respondent/Institute. In the facts and circumstances
narrated above, considering the Petitioner’s past and present conduct,
we do not find that the said punishment is disproportionate.
30. In this regard, it was urged by the learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner that the suspension of the petitioner from the Institute for
a period of two years was disproportionate assuming that the Institute
was entitled to impose the penalty of suspension. Since the petitioner
was pursuing higher studies, the punishment would deprive him of
further studies for a period of two years. Reliance in this regard was
placed on the decision of the Division Bench in ‘X’ Vs. Maharashtra
National Law University, Mumbai (supra).
31. It may be observed that ordinarily, the discretion to impose
penalty is on the Disciplinary Authority. Such decision has to be taken in
the light of the facts of the case and the gravity of the misconduct
attracting such penalty. As held in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India
(1987 INSC 285), it is only if the penalty imposed is so disproportionate
to the misconduct in question, so as to shock the conscience of the
Court and there is conclusive evidence of bias, that the Court may
Husen 20/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
consider substituting such punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the
penalty of suspension as imposed, is so disproportionate to the reasons
for which the same has been imposed, so as to shock the conscience of
the Court. The principles of natural justice having been complied with
and the Petitioner having been given a fair opportunity to present his
case, we do not find any reason to hold the penalty to be so
disproportionate so as to warrant interference in extra-ordinary
jurisdiction. The ratio of the decision in “X” Vs. Maharashtra National
Law University (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present
case, inasmuch as the penalty imposed therein was found to be
disproportionate because expulsion from the Educational Institution in
that case was to operate perpetually for an indefinite period. In the
present case, it is for 2 years. Hence, the contention that the penalty
imposed in the present case is disproportionate, cannot be accepted.
32. Coming to charge No.2 from the impugned Report, perusal of the
circular dated 14.06.2023 indicates that the Respondent/Institute had
clearly informed all the students that expressing and promoting their
personal views, comments and/or observations on any media platform,
while identifying themselves as TISS students, is strictly prohibited. The
action of the Petitioner in participating the Parliament March under the
banner of PSF-TISS is clearly a breach of this regulation, duly published
by the Respondent/Institute in June 2023 itself. The said circular
provided that if any student breaches this policy, strict action from the
institution will follow. The present inquiry is obviously in keeping with
the said circular.
33. The impugned report has held under charge No. 4 that it is for
the law enforcement agencies to investigate whether the acts of
Husen 21/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
Petitioner are anti-national.
34. So far as reliance placed on Clauses 5 & 6 of UGC guidelines for
students entitlement (page 109 of the petition) are concerned, it is
material to note that the same provide for salutary principles of non-
discriminatory treatment and freedom of thought & expression within
and outside of the Institution. In the facts and circumstances narrated
above, we do not find this case as an outcome of any discrimination or
against freedom of expression. This case is about involving name of the
institution in the expression of politically motivated thoughts and
protests undertaken by the Petitioner, a student. If such actions are
prohibited under applicable rules, then the necessary consequences of
the breach is bound to follow.
35. Now, let’s test the use of government grant / fellowship to the
Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner is receiving the grant under the
fellowship in the form of financial aid from the Government. When the
Petitioner participated in the Parliament March, he was a Ph.D. student
receiving the aid. From the reply filed by the Respondent No.3 (Union
of India), it is clear that financial aid is given as per guidelines. Under
Clause (10) of Scheme Guidelines the grant is made available to student
selected and approved by the Institution, who has authority to confer
and sustain the fellowship. The Petitioner used the name of the
Respondent Institute when he was utilizing the said grant which is a
resource. The Petitioner while enjoying the financial aid approved by
the Respondent/Institute, participated in a clearly politically motivated
protest in a student group under a banner having name PSF-TISS.
Therefore the necessary effect of such conduct on the decision of the
Respondent Institute about grant is bound to follow.
Husen 22/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
36. Lastly, turning to the other judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner.
(i) The judgment of Shri. Anand Patwardhan (supra) is relied
upon to stress that the documentary Ram Ke naam has been
directed to be telecast by the Supreme Court. We are not
confirming impugned action based on screening or otherwise
of this documentary.
(ii) The judgment of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (supra) is
relied upon to the argument about right to peaceful protest is
a fundamental right. The protest participated by the
Petitioner in Parliament March using TISS name with PSF
was clearly politically motivated. Therefore aspect of
‘peaceful’ is not concerned. He could have participated in his
individual capacity but he chose to use PSF-TISS banner and
therefore name of the Respondent Institute was involved and
therefore the action followed.
(iii) The judgment of Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh (supra) is relied
upon to contend that if the Court finds that the impugned
action to agitate and oppose the law is part of fundamental
right then it is not open to the Court to ascertain whether
exercise of such right will create law and order problem and
a person cannot be called traitor only because he wants to
oppose a particular law. We are not entering in this subject,
as the Committee in the impugned Report has rightly left it
to the investigating agencies to decide whether the acts of
the Petitioner are anti-national or not.
Husen 23/24
::: Uploaded on – 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
902 WP-3359-2024 (J) C2.doc
(iv) The judgment of Javed Ahmad Hajam (supra) is relied upon
to contend that right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful
manner is an integral part of rights guaranteed under Article
19 of the Constitution of India and every individual must re-
spect the right of others to dissent. We respectfully agree
with this salutary principle, and we have said nothing about
Petitioner’s right to dissent.
37. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, having ourselves
considered the material on record, we do not find that the impugned
Committee report suspending the Petitioner for two years, suffers from
any perversity or illegality. The impugned report and consequent action
of suspension are based on material available on record and it is
proportionate. This is not a fit case to interfere. There is no merit in the
petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
38. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) Husen 24/24 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2025 22:34:21 :::
[ad_1]
Source link