Telangana High Court Allows Students Accused Of Ragging To Appear For Exams, Results To Be Withheld Till Leave Granted

The Telangana High Court has directed the P V Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University to allow students charged with ragging their junior to appear for examination.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shavan Kumar however clarified that their results should not be declared without the leave of the court. 

"In the meanwhile, it is directed that respondents shall be permitted to appear in the examination. However, their result shall not be declared without leave of this Court."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the University against the orders of a single judge which set aside the memo of the expulsion of 2nd-year and 4th-year students who allegedly ragged a first-year student.

One of the observations of the Single Judge Bench was that no notice was awarded to the students before expelling them and hence the order was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The Counsel on behalf of the appellant/University contended that the students did not require any notice because they were parties to the enquiry.

The Bench posed a question to the Counsel on behalf of the University as to whether students were being permitted to appear for the examinations.

At this juncture, Advocate PVL Bhanu Prakash, counsel for the students brought to the notice of the Court that the exams had started on the 10th of October, and despite the order of the single judge, students were not permitted to appear for examinations.

The Chief Justice immediately directed the University to permit the students to attend the exams. "We will hear your case, but let them appear for examination."

Case before the Single Judge:

The case of the respondent/ students was that the Enquiry Committee set up to investigate the ragging activities was illegal, and the order passed by the Committee was liable to be set aside. They contested that the complainant (hostel warden) was made part of the enquiry committee that conducted an inquiry on the incident, which would make the committee biased.

The students had also contended before the single judge that their confessions were taken by force and on the basis of the said confessions they were expelled from the hostels and college vehicles and rusticated for a period of one year taking effect from November 1st 2022.

They stated that such a harsh punishment without so much as an opportunity of being heard, was arbitrary, illegal and the memo of rustication ought to be set aside. The students contended that due to the arbitrary actions on the part of the University, they were unable to attend the internal examinations.

The University on the other hand contended that they received several complaints in the grievance box from the student and even phone calls from concerned parents about the ragging incident after which the inquiries were conducted.

After the preliminary and final inquiry were completed, substantial evidence against the students was collected, and the offenses were classified into 3 categories, serious ragging, objectionable ragging and minor ragging.

It was also argued that as per the UGC Regulations Clause 9.1 (b), category (1) offenders borders were expelled from all Hostels and college vehicles permanently and rustication from institution for one-year, category (II) boarders were awarded the punishment of suspension from academics for one month and expelled from all Hostels and college vehicles permanently and finally category (III) offender boarders were awarded punishment of suspension from academics for one-month and expelled from all hostels and college vehicles for 6 months.

The University further contended that the Warden was an 'honour position' and a first-level officer. It was clarified that he did not make the complaint but was a convenor of the complaint to the committee.

The Single Judge noted in a judgment passed on 11th October that, a plain reading of the rustication memo and composition of the Committee would reveal that the Warden in fact was the complainant and not merely a convenor and that due to this the committee lacked jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry.

Adding to that, the Court opined that Regulation 6.4.1 of the UGC Regulations on curbing the menace of ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009, had not been followed at all and consequently set aside the memo and directed the University to permit students to appear for examinations.

Case Title: P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University vs. Pendyala Abhilash & Ors.

Counsel for appellants: Mr. M. SURENDER RAO Senior Counsel representing AKA VENKATARAMANA

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.V.L. BHANU PRAKASH

Click Here To Read/Download Order