Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has directed the constitution of two committees to independently re-evaluate answer sheets and inquire into allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination against students at Dr Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar passed the directions while hearing a writ petition filed by a PhD research scholar and a fifth-semester B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student of the university, who alleged that academic and administrative authority had been used by the Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys’ Hostel for caste-based humiliation and retaliation.
The High Court directed the Vice-Chancellor to constitute an independent committee to re-evaluate the answer sheets of petitioner no. 2 in subjects taught and evaluated by respondent no. 6 (Dr Deepak Sharma), as well as any other subjects indicated by the student.
It further directed that the answer sheets be placed before the committee after masking the identities of the candidate and original evaluator, without disclosing the marks originally awarded.
“The Committee shall complete the exercise and submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor within one week,” the Allahabad High Court ordered, directing that the Vice-Chancellor place the report before it on the next date of hearing.
For examining the allegations raised by the petitioners, the High Court asked Archana Singh-I, Judge, Small Cause Court, District Court, Prayagraj, and Arun Kumar Yadava, Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, to conduct an inquiry and submit a report.
The inquiry will examine whether students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were subjected to caste-based humiliation or discrimination by Dr Deepak Sharma or any other person employed by or working for gain in the university, and whether their complaints were dealt with in accordance with applicable regulations. The inquiring officers were authorised to record the statements of the petitioners and other persons, including Dr Sharma, and call for varsity records required for the inquiry.
The Registrar of the university was directed to extend full cooperation.
The High Court also directed that before recording any adverse conclusion against a person, the inquiring officers must communicate the substance of the allegations and provide a reasonable opportunity to explain. The inquiry report must record the substance of the explanation and any recommendations. It further directed the inquiring officers to take appropriate measures to protect the identities of students who depose before them, in view of the apprehension of retaliation expressed in the complaint filed on August 20.
“The report shall be submitted in a sealed cover before the next date of hearing,” Justice Diwakar ordered.
The High Court also directed the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that neither petitioner faces any adverse academic or administrative consequences on account of the proceedings or statements made during the inquiry. Until further orders, Dr Sharma will not be assigned any role in evaluating the answer scripts of petitioner no. 2 or in any disciplinary or hostel-related matter concerning either petitioner.
The university was further directed to relieve the assistant professor concerned of all administrative responsibilities until the completion of the inquiries.
The High Court also asked the Vice-Chancellor to file an affidavit stating whether the university had constituted an Equal Opportunity Cell and a committee for redressal of grievances of students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as required under applicable University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations. The affidavit must also disclose the composition of these bodies, the action taken on the complaint filed on August 20 and subsequent reminders, and the reasons for the apparent failure to act on the grievance.
The Registrar was directed to file a personal affidavit addressing the same aspects.
The petitioners had alleged that the university authorities failed to act on the complaint submitted by petitioner no. 2 to the Vice-Chancellor, despite repeated reminders and further complaints. The complaint, as reproduced in the High Court order, alleged that stricter evaluation of answer sheets was linked to the student’s caste and referred to remarks allegedly made by Dr Sharma concerning caste and reservation. The student sought independent review or re-evaluation of the Constitutional Law-II and other answer scripts by an impartial evaluator, subject to university rules, while requesting confidentiality over the complaint due to apprehensions of retaliation and adverse consequences in the academic environment.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that it had not recorded any finding on the truth of the allegations against Dr Sharma or any other person. “The allegations are serious, and for that very reason they require to be examined by an impartial agency after affording a full opportunity of hearing to the person against whom they are made,” the order observed.
The High Court directed the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar to maintain strict confidentiality concerning the proceedings and disclose information only to persons necessary for compliance with the order. The matter has been posted for fresh hearing on September 24, at 12 noon.
(IANS)
