Bombay High Court Cites Procedural Flaws In MNLU Student's Expulsion For Sexual Misconduct, Urges Reformative Approach
Pranav Kumar
13 Oct 2024 8:30 AM IST
A Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil set aside the expulsion of a law student from Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) for sexual misconduct, citing serious procedural violations and recommending a reconsideration of the penalty. The court held that while the student's misconduct was significant, MNLU failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards required under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2015. The court also observed that a less severe, reformative punishment could have been more appropriate in the circumstances.
Background
The petitioner, 'X', was a student in the final year of the B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) program at MNLU, Mumbai. A complaint alleging sexual misconduct was filed against 'X' by another student, 'Y', in March 2023. This was not the first complaint against 'X'—he had previously been expelled from the university hostel for an earlier instance of sexual harassment. The university's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 20 May 2023, finding 'X' guilty of sexual harassment for the second time. The ICC recommended his expulsion from the university This led to an official order of expulsion on 17 June 2023. 'X' appealed to the Vice Chancellor, who upheld the ICC's findings but allowed 'X' to complete his final semester exams as a matter of grace. Following the Vice Chancellor's decision, 'X' approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the expulsion.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, representing 'X', argued that MNLU had violated the procedural safeguards under Clause 8 of the UGC Regulations, 2015. It failed to issue a show cause notice before expelling 'X'. Desai also contended that 'X' was not allowed to cross-examine 'Y' or her witnesses, undermining his right to a fair hearing. Moreover, it was emphasized that expulsion was a disproportionately harsh penalty, particularly since 'X' had completed his academic program and approaches such as mandatory counseling or community service could have been more appropriate.
MNLU was represented by Dr. Uday Warunjikar, who asserted that 'X' had already been given opportunities to defend himself during the ICC proceedings. He stressed that 'X' had demonstrated no signs of reform, and that the expulsion was necessary to maintain campus discipline and safeguard other students. The penalty, he argued, was proportionate to the gravity of 'X's repeated misconduct. Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing 'Y', further argued that 'X' had shown no remorse and had even chosen not to challenge the ICC's findings in his appeal. Seervai underscored that the expulsion was justified given 'X's previous disciplinary infractions and his ongoing misconduct, highlighting the need to protect the campus community and ensure that discipline was maintained.
Judgment
The Division Bench focused on two main issues: the procedural fairness of the expulsion and the proportionality of the punishment. The court found that MNLU had violated procedural norms by failing to issue a show cause notice to 'X' before enforcing the ICC's recommendation, as required by Clause 8(6) of the UGC Regulations, 2015. This procedural step, the court emphasized, was critical in ensuring that 'X' had the opportunity to contest the proposed expulsion. The absence of such a notice amounted to a violation of natural justice, and the expulsion could not be upheld on this ground alone.
Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of 'X's repeated misconduct but questioned whether expulsion was an appropriate response given that 'X' had already completed his academic program. The court noted that under Clause 10 of the UGC Regulations, reformative measures, such as mandatory counseling or community service, could have been considered. The court highlighted that the ultimate aim of university discipline should include both punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation, particularly in cases where a student's future academic career might be at stake.
Weighing these factors, the court quashed the expulsion order and directed MNLU to reconsider its disciplinary action, this time adhering to the procedural requirements and considering a less severe penalty. The court suggested that reformative punishment, which would allow 'X' to complete his education without entirely erasing his academic achievements, might be more fitting in this case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Abhijit Desai, Karan Gajra, Mohini Rehpade, Daksha Punghera, Vijay Singh, Sachita Sontakke, and Digvijay Kachare, instructed by Desai Legal
Counsel for the Respondents: Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Jenish Jain and Dattaram Bile, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (MNLU); Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Gulnar Mistry, Pooja Thorat, Amar Bodake, and Trisha Choudhary, instructed by M.V. Thorat for Respondent No. 4
Decided on: 10-10-2024
2024:BHC-OS:15904-DB
