Case title: Ankita Singh v. Vice Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2805/2024
Decided on: 01.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice C Hari Shankar.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a petitioner named Ankita Singh, who is a Ph.D. scholar at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The case revolves around the petitioner’s expulsion from JNU without allegedly following the principles of natural justice or the Statutes governing the procedure. The petitioner has approached the court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Article 226, The petitioner has sought relief under Article 226, which grants the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Principles of Natural Justice, the petitioner claims that her expulsion from JNU violated the principles of natural justice. These principles include the right to be heard, the right to a fair and unbiased decision-maker, and the right to a fair opportunity to present one’s case.
The petitioner alleges that the expulsion was carried out without complying with the Statutes governing the procedure for such actions.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
Petitioner contends that her expulsion from JNU was carried out without complying with the principles of natural justice or the Statutes governing the procedure for such actions. She claims that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case or defend herself against the allegations.
Petitioner argues that the principles of natural justice, which include the right to be heard and the right to a fair and unbiased decision-maker, were not followed during the expulsion process. She asserts that the decision to expel her was made without proper consideration of her side of the story.
Petitioner asserts that despite the availability of alternate forms of redress, such as an appeal under the Statutes governing JNU, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be foreclosed. She argues that the availability of an alternate remedy should not act as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, represented by Ms. Monika Arora, Ld. CGSC, and Adv Mr. Kautilya Birat for UOI, along with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Adv. For JNU, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. They argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under the Statutes governing JNU.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court noted the absence of a counter affidavit from JNU and presumed the assertions in the petition to be correct and untraversed. The Court addressed a preliminary objection raised by JNU’s counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had been granted liberty by the Supreme Court to approach the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Court rejected the objection and allowed the writ petition to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In its judgment, the Court expressed deep concern over the expulsion of Ankita Singh from JNU without apparent compliance with the principles of natural justice or the Statutes governing the procedure for such actions. The Court found the facts of the case to be deeply disturbing and stayed the operation of the impugned office order dated 8 May 2023. As a result, Ankita Singh was ordered to be readmitted to JNU in the same capacity as before, allowing her to continue her course of study pending the outcome of the writ petition. The Court granted JNU four weeks to file a counter affidavit and provided an additional four weeks for the petitioner to file a rejoinder. The case was scheduled to be renotified on 9 July 2024.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
