Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court held that while the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) recommending expulsion of the petitioner were valid, the Vice-Chancellor’s failure to issue a mandatory show cause notice before imposing the penalty of expulsion was a procedural lapse. The court further applied the doctrine of proportionality, considering whether the punishment of expulsion was excessive given the facts of the case. It concluded that re-engaging both parties in further litigation would not serve justice, and an alternative resolution that balances the interests of both students is necessary.
Facts:
The petitioner, a law student, was expelled from Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) following a second finding of guilt by the ICC for sexual harassment. The petitioner had previously been expelled from the university hostel in 2022. After a new incident in February 2023 involving another student, the ICC recommended expulsion from the university rolls. The Vice-Chancellor upheld the ICC’s decision but allowed the petitioner to complete his final exams as a humanitarian gesture. The petitioner challenged the expulsion, citing procedural unfairness and the disproportionality of the punishment.
Issues:
- Whether the expulsion of the petitioner without a show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the punishment of expulsion was disproportionate given the petitioner’s academic status and prior conduct.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the ICC’s inquiry did not follow proper procedure, including the failure to issue a show cause notice as mandated by Clause 8(6) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2015. The petitioner also claimed that the expulsion was disproportionate and excessive, as it would permanently derail his academic career. A more reformative approach, such as community service or counseling, was suggested as a lesser penalty.
Respondent’s Arguments:
MNLU, represented by the Vice-Chancellor and ICC, defended the expulsion, stating that the petitioner’s repeated misconduct warranted strict disciplinary action. The respondent emphasized the need to maintain discipline within the university and argued that the petitioner’s previous infractions and failure to reform justified the expulsion.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined Clause 8(6) of the UGC Regulations, which requires a show cause notice to be issued before imposing penalties. The court found that the Vice-Chancellor’s failure to issue such notice violated the principles of natural justice. The court also reviewed the doctrine of proportionality, which requires that the severity of the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the misconduct. The court analyzed the balance between institutional discipline and the petitioner’s right to complete his education.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to various judgments on the doctrine of proportionality, including Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, which held that punishments must not be so harsh as to shock the judicial conscience. The court also cited Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy v. Birla Institute of Technology and T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvaraj v. Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, where courts reduced punishments to less severe forms that focused on reformative justice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court concluded that the ICC’s findings of misconduct were valid, but the expulsion was imposed without following the proper procedure, specifically the lack of a show cause notice. Additionally, the court found that the punishment of expulsion, without considering reformative alternatives, was disproportionate in light of the petitioner’s academic progress. The court noted that further litigation would unnecessarily prolong the dispute and distract both parties from their academic pursuits.
Conclusion:
The court set aside the expulsion order and directed the university to impose a lesser punishment that would allow the petitioner to complete his studies while addressing the misconduct. The court emphasized that the alternative penalty must balance institutional discipline with the petitioner’s right to education.
Implications:
This judgment highlights the importance of following due process in disciplinary actions, particularly in educational institutions. It also reinforces the application of the doctrine of proportionality in cases involving student misconduct, encouraging reformative justice over punitive measures that permanently disrupt a student’s academic future.
