Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Special Appeal Nos. 175 of 2018, Special Appeal No.210 of 2018, Special Appeal No.211 of 2018 and Special Appeal No. 212 of 2018 have been filed by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur1 to assail the common judgment dated 16 February 2018 passed in Writ-C 584 of 2018, Writ-C No.1419 of 2018, Writ-C No. 2554 of 2018, Writ-C No. 2903 of 2018. Special Appeal No.214 of 2018 has been filed by IIT Kanpur to assail the judgment dated 23 February 2018 passed in Writ-C No.3635 of 2018 by which the writ petition was allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 16 February 2018. In all these Special Appeals filed by IIT Kanpur the order of the learned Judge continuing entitlement of the petitioner-students to participate in the Semester Examination and also to reside in the campus for further semester examination has been challenged.
Special Appeal No. 197 of 2018, Special Appeal No.230 of 2018 and Special Appeal No.234 of 2018 have been filed by writ petitioners of Writ C No.1419 of 2018, Writ C No.3635 of 2018 and Writ C No.2554 of 2018 to assail the common judgment and order dated 16 February 2018.
The learned Judge allowed the writ petitions that had been filed to challenge the orders imposing punishment on the petitioners for acts of ragging. The punishment orders dated 9 October 2017 and 7/8 December 2017 passed by the Senate and approved by the Chairman Senate on 17 December 2017 have been quashed. The Committee appointed pursuant to the orders passed by the Court on 13 November 2017 and 21 November 2017, in Writ-C No. 51565 of 2017 has further been directed to submit a fresh recommendation/report in the light of the observations made in the judgment, where after, it has been left open to the Senate to take a fresh decision in accordance with law.
It transpires from the records that certain complaints were received that freshly admitted students of 2017 Batch had been ragged by seniors in the intervening night of 19 August 2017. On receipt of such complaints, the matter was sent to the Senate Students Affairs Committee2. This Committee submitted its report to the Chairman of the Senate by letter dated 5 September 2017. The Senate did not approve the recommendations because they had been made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the students. The SSAC was, accordingly, directed to give its final recommendations by 9 October 2017. The SSAC then submitted its recommendation on 8 October 2017 and the Senate met on 9 October 2017 to consider the recommendations.
The minutes of the meeting of the Senate held on 9 October 2017, are reproduced herein below:-
"Minutes of the adjourned meeting held on 09/10/2017.
As resolved on the agenda on September 21, 2017 under para 2, the opportunity of personal hearing was provided to all the delinquent students by the same SSAC Committee on 08/10/2017 and after hearing all the details, SSAC vide its letter dated 09/10/2017 submitted its recommendations which were again placed in adjourned meeting of the Senate on October 09, 2017. After detailed discussion and considering the earlier & recent recommendations of SSAC, Senate finally resolved on the issue that:
Resolution of Senate:
The Senate noted that the opportunity was given to all alleged offenders to explain their position to SSAC on the incident that happened in Hall-2, IIT Kanpur.
1. 16 student members of the Hall of Residence II i.e. Karan Kashyap (160321), Kashish Thakran (160326), Abhinav Kumar (160018), Umang Garg (160754), Abhinav Arora (160016), Sameer Banchhor (160615), Nishant Arya (160457), Akash Yadav (160071), Bhupesh Kumawat (160201), Devendra Kolhe (160232), Sumit Kumar Mahla (160719), Supreet Agrawal (160722), Anurag Chanani (160138), Sachin Angural (160597), Richeek Awasthi (160566), Shivam Kant (160653) should be immediately suspended for 3 years (Six semesters) from their academic program.
2. 06 students i.e. Tejas Gupta (160747), Abhishek Gupta (160028), Aman Gupta (160087), Vipul Kohli (160795), Rohan Sakeri (160580), Utkarsh Sagar (160759) should be immediately suspended for 1 year (two semesters).
3. The above stated students in Point 1 and 2 will not be permitted to reside inside the campus during their suspension period. The Senate shall not entertain any appeal from above 22 students at least for a period of one year.
4. The identity of all the complainants should be protected at all costs.
5. DOSA will apprise the complainants and their parents of the disciplinary action taken by the Institute against the offenders. If the students or their parents are not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken and if they desire to file an FIR, the Institute shall provide all possible assistance for filing FIRs.
6. The Senate authorized the Director, IIT Kanpur to initiate appropriate action against Mr. Nikhil Kurele and his friends present in his room taking into consideration the recommendations of the SSAC against them.
7. All UG Counselling Service student guides and the UG Counselling Service Coordinators to be awarded Level 1 punishment with the exception that they will not be debarred from receiving Institute/Convocation prizes and other awards in future. They will be issued a letter of reprimand and asked to submit a letter of apology.
8. The President Student Gymkhana, Mr. Rutuj Jugade, to be awarded Level 6 punishment barring him from: (I) contesting any student election; (ii) holding any executive post in Hall of Residence/Gymkhana; (iii) representing IITK in any event.
Twelve (12) Senators expressed their dissent on the reduction of quantum of punishment to 16 students from what was originally recommended by the SSAC on the ground that the final punishment awarded by the Senate was not commensurate with the seriousness of the misdemeanor."
This resolution of the Senate was thereafter placed before the Anti Ragging Committee, which approved the same on 26 October 2017 and resolved to implement the decision taken by the Senate. The resolution of the Anti Ragging Committee is reproduced herein below:-
"Report on the ragging incidents that happened at IIT Kanpur during July-August, 2017 and the actions taken by the institute Complaints:
Dean of Students Affairs (DoSA), IIT Kanpur received complaints that ragging incidents happened in Hall 2 of IIT Kanpur and some other places in the campus. Following complaints were given in the statements:
i. Second year students including the HEC members of Hall of Residence (Hall 2) were involved in ragging the first year students of Hall 2. The incident occurred during the early hours of 20th August, 2017, between 00:30 hrs-6:00 hrs. Several humiliating tasks were given to the first year students by the seniors to perform.
ii. In the treasure hunt event which took place on the night of 14-15th August, 2017, some 1st year students were sent to Hall 1, while some others were sent to a room in SBRA, where an alumnus was staying.
(a) The alumnus along with his friends were involved in ragging the first year students.
(b) In Hall 1, the President, Students Gymkhana had told some first year students that if they complain to the DoSA, then the DoSA would call only him and he would deny the incident.
iii. During the orientation programme, the student guides and student coordinators of the Counselling Service forced the freshers to do some inappropriate acts.
The actions taken by the Institute:
The complaints were taken to the Senate Student's Advisory Committee (SSAC) which consists of seven faculty members and four students. The committee first met on 02nd September, 2017 and identified President, Students Gymkhana, the alumnus and his friends who were present in his room on the night of 14-15th August and the 22 delinquent students of Hall 2. The committee met again on 08th October, 2017 and the 22 delinquent students of Hall 2, each appeared before the committee to explain their position with respect to the ragging incident. The committee discussed the matter at length on both the days and submitted its recommendation to the Chairman, Academic Senate.
The Academic Senate, which is the highest authority on all academic including student discipline related matters, discussed the matter on 21st September, 2017 and 09th October, 2017 at length after considering the SSAC recommendations. The Senate noted that the opportunity was given to all alleged offenders to explain their position to SSAC, regarding the incident that happened in Hall-2, IIT Kanpur. The Senate took the following decisions:
1. 16 students members of Hall 2 should be immediately suspended for 3 years (Six semesters) from their academic program.
2. 06 student members should be immediately suspended for 1 year (two semesters).
3. The above stated students in Points 1 and 2 will not be permitted to reside inside the campus during their suspension period. The Senate shall not entertain any appeal from the above 22 students for at least a period of one year.
4. The identity of all the complainants should be protected at all costs.
5. DOSA will apprise the complainants and their parents of the disciplinary action taken by the Institute against the offenders. If the students or their parents are not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken and if they desire to file an FIR, the Institute shall provide all possible assistance for filing the FIRs.
6. The Senate authorized the Director, IIT Kanpur to initiate appropriate action against the alumnus and his friends present in his room taking into consideration the recommendations of the SSAC against them.
7. All UG Counseling Service student guides and the UG Counselling Service Coordinators should be awarded Level 1 punishment with the exception that they will not be debarred from receiving Institute/Convocation prizes and other awards in future. They will be issued a letter of reprimand and asked to submit a letter of apology.
8. The then President Student Gymkhana, Mr. Rutuj Jugade, to be awarded Level 6 punishment barring him from: (I) contesting any student election; (ii) holding any executive post in Hall of Residence/Gymkhana; (iii) representing IITK in any event.
The decision taken by the Senate will be implemented by the institute at priority."
Out of the 22 students punished, some of them filed Writ Petitions in this Court and the leading Writ Petition was Writ-C No. 51656 of 2017. It was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 13 November 2017 along with the other connected petitions. It was contended before the learned Judge in these petitions that none of the petitioners had participated in the ragging nor had they been provided any charge-sheet nor any document specifying allegations of their involvements; that principles of natural justice had been violated and the procedure adopted was contrary to the draft guidelines; the students having knowledge of the incident who did not disclose the same cannot said to be involved in the ragging incident and cannot be punished for non-disclosure of the information; the hearing provided on 9 October 2017 was an empty formality; the statement of students allegedly involved in the ragging incident were not reduced in writing; there is no written report of the Students Affairs Committee or Anti-Ragging Committee placed either before the SSAC or Senate and, that there was no independent application of mind by the Senate on the question of involvement of the petitioners and the punishment awarded to them. The petitioners expressed their willingness to file an appeal before the Chairman, Senate under the provisions of Ordinance No. 9.10 against the punishment awarded on the recommendation of the Standing Committee. The learned Judge, accordingly observed that the remedy provided by the Ordinances cannot be denied and the students must get a chance of hearing in appeal. Accordingly, directions were issued by the Court on 13 November 2017 are reproduced:
"In view of the above, without interfering in the order impugned, the present writ petitions is being disposed of with the observations and directions as follows;-
1. The petitioners-students shall submit a notarised affidavit by tomorrow i.e. on 14.11.2017 deposing therein that during their stay inside the campus for undertaking the forthcoming examinations, they will not indulge in any kind of illegal activity. They will not meet or interact any fresher student during the said period even when they use the library or go to the examination Hall nor do they would indulge in any kind of activity that may create disharmony inside the campus of the institute and maintain discipline of the utmost level.
2. Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the petitioners-students are allowed to file appeal to the Senate under Ordinance 9.10 of the Ordinances of the Code of Conduct of the Students, before the Chairman, Senate within a period of one week from today alongwith certified copy of this order.
3. In case of filing of appeal(s), the Chairman, The Senate IIT, Kanpur shall place the same before the Senate alongwith entire records.
4. As assured by the learned counsel for the respondent-institute, on the instructions received by him, the meeting of the Senate with specific agenda to consider appeal(s) of the students be convened on or before 20.12.2017, so as to take an early decision in the matter.
5. The petitioners-students shall be provided personal hearing by the Senate on the date of meeting, the petitioners- students would be under obligation to co-operate and in case they or any of them fail(s) to appear, the meeting may not be adjourned and the Senate may proceed with the deliberations.
6. During the course of personal hearing, the complaints against the petitioners and their statements recorded in the meeting of SSAC dated 08.10.2017 be read out to them. The charges of their involvement in the ragging incidents of 19-20 August, 2017 be also narrated to them.
7. The version of the Warden of Hall-II and other members of Anti-Ragging Committee (Disciplinary Committee of the Institute) regarding the ragging incidents be also taken note of and be narrated to the students.
8. As the students have undertaken their course of study till the suspension order was passed, they are permitted to take up the third semester examinations commencing from 15.11.2017 provisionally subject to the final decision taken by the Senate in their appeal(s).
9. In order to balance the interest of students as well as the institute, it would be appropriate that the petitioners may be allowed to reside inside the campus of the institute at a different place from Hall of Residence-II be it another Hall of Residence or the Guest house of the institute or any other accommodation inside the campus of the institute so that they may avail library and other facilities to prepare for the examination.
10. The petitioners-students, on the other hand, would be under obligation to maintain their conduct and discipline to the utmost and shall abide by the undertaking given by them in the notary affidavit.
11. They shall not be allowed to meet or interact with fresher students during the period of their stay inside the campus, till examinations are over.
12. The permission to reside inside the campus has been granted to the petitioners-students only to facilitate them to undertake their IIIrd semester examination, provisionally. They shall leave the Campus immediately after the IIIrd semester examinations are over. Their result of IIIrd semester examination and to undertake further course of study i.e. IVth semester would be subject to the final decision taken by the Senate. The decision so taken by the Senate shall be communicated to the petitioners at the earliest, latest by end of December, 2017 (as assured by Sri Rohan Gupta learned counsel for the respondent-institute.) It is made clear that the permission granted to the petitioner to enter the campus and to undertake examination is provisional subject to furnishing of an undertaking in the notarized affidavit to be submitted before the Director of the institute.
In case, the decision of the Senate goes against the petitioners, they shall be at liberty to challenge the same by availing such remedy as may be advised.
A copy of the order be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on the payment of usual charges.
Disposed of."
(emphasis supplied) Thereafter, IIT Kanpur filed a clarification application in the leading petition which was disposed of by an order dated 21 November 2017. It is reproduced:-
"Civil Misc. Clarification Application No.380767 of 2017 Heard Sri Rohan Gupta learned counsel for the respondent-institute and Sri Pratik Chandra learned counsel for the petitioners-students.
The clarification application has been filed on behalf of the respondent-institute in view of the letter dated 15.11.2017 of the Senate Co-ordinater and Secretary, Senate seeking clarification as to whether the Senate can process the appeal filed by the students (including their personal hearing) through a Committee as per the practice followed by the Senate for disposing of the appeals. It is sought to be submitted therein that the recommendation of said Committee alongwith relevant documents will be considered by the Senate for final decision of the appeals.
On a query made by the Court regarding constitution of such Committee, Sri Rohan Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent-institute has not been able to place any statutory provision except ordinance 9.10 which provides that the Senate can evolve its own procedure for the purpose of disposal of appeals. As on date, no such procedure has been notified by the Senate but as per the practice prevailing in the institute, the appeals are being examined by a Committee constituted by Senate and the recommendation of the said Committee are placed before the Senate for final deliberations on the merits of the appeals.
In the instant case, the Standing Committee namely the Senate Students Affair Committee (S.S.A.C) had considered the matter and the order of suspension had been passed on the recommendation of the said Committee. In order to give one chance to these students to avail the remedy of statutory appeal, the directions have been issued in the judgement and order dated 13.11.2017 for allowing them to file appeal before the Chairman, Senate who shall place it before the Senate for deliberations and disposal thereof.
Simultaneously, it was also directed that these students will be provided personal hearing by the Senate on the date of meeting which would be duly intimated to them.
Considering the above noted facts, only this much is clarified that a Committee may be constituted by the Senate for the purpose of granting personal hearing to the students on a date to be fixed by the said Committee. The constitution of the said Committee would be such which would not include the members including Chairman of Senate Students Affair Committee (S.S.A.C). The statements of the students recorded during the course of hearing shall be reduced in writing and be placed before the Senate alongwith other relevant records strictly in conformity with the directions given in the judgement and order dated 13.11.2017 and the final decision on the appeals filed by the petitioners-students shall be taken by the Senate after due deliberations.
The above method evolved for disposal of appeals of the petitioners-students shall not be treated as precedent in future.
The clarification application is disposed of, accordingly."
(emphasis supplied) The benefit of the directions issued by this Court, as noticed above, were provided by the Institute not only to those students who had filed petitions before this Court but also to those who were affected by the order of the Senate dated 9 October 2017.
To comply with the directions of this Court, the Institute constituted a Committee and it is claimed by the Institute that the appellants were provided personal hearing by the said Committee. The report of the Committee dated 4 December 2017 is reproduced herein below:-
Report of the Committee for Hearing the Appeals of Students in the Ragging Case Following the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, dated November 21, 2017, the Chairman, Senate, IIT Kanpur constituted a committee to give personal hearing to the twenty two students suspended by a decision of the Senate in its 500th meeting held on September 21, 2017 and October 9, 2017 (Annexure 1). The committee had the following members:
(1) Dr. Ajai Jain, CSE, Chairperson (2) Dr. Neeraj Misra, DOAA, Member (3) Dr. Achla M. Raina, HSS, Member (4) Dr. M.K. Harbola, Physics, Member (5) Dr. Rajiv Shekhar, MSE, Member On the request of the students communicated by the Chairman, Senate, the committee agreed to have one student representative present during the hearing.
The committee held several preliminary meetings on November 23, 26 and 29, 2017 to study the Senate decision, along with all relevant documents (Annexure 5), observations and directives of the Hon'ble High Court (Annexure 6), and the appeals filed by the students (Annexure 4). During these meetings, the committee also formalized the detailed procedure to be followed during the hearings. The committee fixed November 30, 2017 as the date of hearing at the conference room of PBCEC, Visitors' Hostel, IIT Kanpur and requested the DOSA to inform the appellants about it. The DOSA was also requested to provide to each student a copy of the statement that they had submitted to the SSAC during its investigations.
The committee met SSAC on November 24, 2017 to go through the procedure followed by the SSAC for its investigations.
Starting at 9:30 am on November 30, 2017, the appellants appeared before the committee one-by-one. The following process was adopted during the personal hearing of the appeals.
(i) The appellants were shown the complaints (Annexure 2) in which they had been named.
(ii) The summary of their own statements recorded in the meeting of the SSAC (Annexure 3) were read out to them.
(iii) The appellants were asked to verify that they had received a copy of their own statements submitted to SSAC in the course of investigations.
(iv) A summary of their appeals was narrated to them and they were asked if all the points in their appeal had been covered in the summary.
(v) The committee asked the appellants whether they wished to provide any additional information in support of their written appeal and gave them a personal hearing in the presence of the student representative.
The committee held a meeting with all the three wardens of Hall-II on December 2, 2017, and noted the details provided by them about the incident. The committee met on December 4, 2017 to finalize its report.
The report of the committee is presented in the form of 22 Summary Sheets, one for each appellant. A Summary Table of the information relevant to each case is also provided.
List of Annexures
1) Office Order
2) Complaints
3) Statements submitted to S-SAC by the Students
4) Appeals
5) Agenda and Minutes of the 500the Meeting of the Senate
6) Court Orders Additional Annexures
1) Appeals of the Parents"
The Committee prepared summary sheet of the proceedings in respect of each of the students involved/ implicated and forwarded the same to the Senate for taking decision.
After preparing the summary sheets, a table summarizing the data collected in the proceedings by the Committee was prepared and placed before the Senate for its decision along with summary of discussion with the Wardens of Hall-II.
On the aforesaid summary sheets/ table/ report, the Senate convened a Special Meeting. In the meetings held on 7 and 8 December 2017 decision was taken which is reproduced herein below:-
1. The Senate considered the report of the committee constituted by the Chairman, Senate to give personal hearing to the 22 students suspended by the decision of the Senate in its 500th meeting held on 21 September 2017 and 09 October 2017. The Chairman of the Committee presented the details of personal hearing of each suspended students and also provided all relevant documents to the Senate. After going through the appeals of the suspended students to review its earlier decision the Senate did not find any merit in the appeals of the following 16 students, hence rejected their appeals; so that punishment awarded to them remain unchanged. Details of such students & their punishments are as follows:-
Sl.No.
Name Roll No. Punishments remains unchanged 1 Karan Kashyap 160321 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 2 Kashish Thakran 160326 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 3 Abhinav Kumar 160018 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 4 Umang Garg 160754 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 5 Nishant Arya 160457 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 6 Akash Yadav 160071 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 7 Bhupesh Kumawat 160201 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 8 Devendra Kolhe 160232 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 9 Sumit Kumar Mahla 160719 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 10 Supreet Agarwal 160722 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 11 Anurag Chanani 160138 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 12 Sachin Angural 160597 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 13 Richeek Awasthi 160566 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 14 Shivam Kant 160653 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 15 Aman Gupta 160087 1 year (Two Semester) suspension 16 Vipul Kohli 160795 1 year (Two Semester) suspension
2. In case of the following six (6) students, after considering their appeals and other relevant documents, the Senate decided to reduce the punishment as mentioned against their names below:
Sl. No. Name Roll No. Punishments as decided in 500th Senate meeting Revised punishment in 504th Senate meeting 1 Abhinav Arora 160016 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 1 year (Two semester) suspension 2 Sameer Banchhor 160615 3 year (Six Semester) suspension 1 year (Two semester) suspension 3 Tejas Gupta 160747 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension 4 Abhishek Gupta 160028 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension 5 Rohan Sakeri 160580 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension 6 Utkarsh Sagar 160759 1 year (Two Semester) suspension One semester suspension The Senate also decided that, since all 22 students have been given a minimum of one (1) semester suspension, the end semester examination (2017-18, I Semester) of all these suspended students who were provisionally allowed to appear in the examination stands cancelled.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair."
The aforesaid decision was communicated to the petitioners by letters dated 26 December 2017.
The learned Judge in the judgment rendered in the Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid decision of the Senate observed that neither the SSAC nor the Committee appointed pursuant to the order of the Court analysed the evidences which were brought against those students with regard to the defence of the students and simply recommended punishmennt without even recording any finding of guilt which seems to have been accepted by the Senate. The relevant observations are as follows:-
"In the instant case, the Court finds that the SSAC made recommendation for punishment and so did the Committee appointed pursuant to the order of this Court but while making the recommendation neither the SSAC nor the Committee appointed pursuant to order of this Court, analyzed the evidence which were brought against those students with reference to the defence of those students and they simply recommended punishment without even recording finding of guilt, which seems to have been accepted by the Senate. No doubt, the Senate may not be under an obligation to record reasons in support of its decision because it being a huge body, recording of reasons may be difficult, in as much as members may have different opinions, but the recommending body can and, in ordinary course, must record reasons in support of its conclusion and recommendations. In the instant case, the recommending body has just submitted recommendation, and a careful scrutiny of the record reveals that it failed to even return finding of guilt. That apart there are no reasons in support of its recommendation except that it collated some data of the proceeding in a tabular form. Such a report can not be made basis of action, particularly when the decision making body, such as the Senate, by the nature of its composition is not in a position to record reasons for the decision taken after analyzing the data put before it.
As in the instant case, the recommendations submitted by the SSAC and, thereafter, by the Committee, appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court, had not recorded any specific finding of guilt with reference to the accusations, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered, and no reasons are there in support of its recommendations with reference to the accusations, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered, the report as well as the recommendations made stand vitiated, particularly when from the summary sheets prepared it does not appear that the incumbents/ petitioners pleaded guilty. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the decision to impose punishment on mere recommendation without there being any specific finding of guilt recorded against the petitioners in respect of the acts constituting ragging is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
.....................
The Court would also like to observe that the petitioners are not petty criminals. They are in a premier institute of this nation which has been conferred the status of an institute of national importance. To get admission in such institutes is an arduous task and only the competent few are able to gain an entry. Such students are therefore potential national assets. For taking a harsh decision on such students, there has to be not only material but analysis of that material with reference to the defence / explanation taken by such students because a harsh decision may not only defeat the morale of such student but may also be a loss to the nation. Therefore, before taking decision to impose punishment there should be careful scrutiny of the material collected and the explanation offered. Not only that even past practice relating to interaction between freshers and seniors should be taken into consideration to ascertain whether there has been excesses or not. These observations may not be understood that lenient view has to be taken on ragging. What is required is a level headed approach keeping in mind all parameters such as, inter alia, whether there has been bodily abuse of any person; whether any person has been physically and mentally tortured to an extent that it may force him to take a drastic step; and whether the ordinary fresher-senior interaction has gone too far resulting in a criminal complaint.
In view of the discussion made above, keeping in mind that the recommendation of punishment was not supported by finding of guilt after analyzing the accusation made, the material in support thereof and the explanation offered by the incumbents, this court is of the view that the decision taken pursuant to such recommendation cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The punishment orders dated 09.10.2017; and 07/08.12.2017 taken by the Senate and approved by the Chairman Senate on 17.12.2017, as communicated vide letter dated 26.12.2017 are hereby quashed. The Committee appointed pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 13.11.2017 and 21.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 51656 of 2017 shall submit a fresh recommendation/report in the light of the observations made herein above, where after it shall be open to the Senate to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. In the meantime, the directions contained in the earlier order dated 13.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 51656 of 2017 in respect of entitlement of the petitioners to participate in the Semester Examinations as also to reside in the campus for further Semester Examinations with the rider that they shall not meet or interact with fresher students during their stay inside the campus shall continue and abide the decision taken pursuant to this order. There is no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied) We have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta for IIT Kanpur and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pratik Chandra and Sri Siddharth Khare and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey and Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Birendra Singh and Sri Manmohan Singh for the students-petitioners.
Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for IIT Kanpur has submitted that the Committee appointed by the Court in pursuance of the order passed on 21 November 2017 in Writ-C No. 51656 of 2017 (the previous writ petition) had its role defined in the order. It was further contended that the role of the Committee was clearly circumscribed by the order of the Court. It was contended that the Court was required to see whether the said Committee had performed its allocated work. It was, therefore, urged that the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the Committee has not recorded finding of guilt of the delinquent students by disclosing nature and extent of their involvement in the incidents of ragging is incorrect. Similarly, the observations of the learned Judge that the said Committee had not analyzed the evidence and had not recorded reasons in support of its conclusion and recommendation, was beyond the scope of the allotted work of the Court appointed Committee. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that the learned Judge has proceeded to direct the said Committee to submit a fresh recommendation/report in the light of the observations made in the judgment which direction is in fact, reading a jurisdiction and role of the Committee that was non-existent.
On the issue of recording reasons by the Senate being an essential element of the principles of natural justice, learned Senior Counsel of IIT Kanpur has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.L. Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others,3 and S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India4 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are different inasmuch as though reasons have not been expressly stated, but the decision was arrived at after consideration of the nature of the charges, the explanation offered and the statements made in the appeal. It is stated that after analyzing all aspects of the individual cases, the Senate which is a huge body comprising of over 200 members, had arrived at a conclusion which cannot said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was thus urged that the judgment of the learned Judge deserves to be set aside.
Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the student Shivam Kant respondents, however, submitted that the said student was not at all involved in the alleged ragging incident. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the report of the SSAC regarding the meeting held on 2 September 2017. It was submitted that the "Treasure Hunt" event that was allegedly held in the night of 14-15 August 2017 does not pertain to the delinquent students but to an alumnus of IIT-Kanpur. The submission is that the resolution of the Senate in its meeting held on 21 September 2017 simply remitted the matter to the SSAC without recording any finding. The report of the SSAC dated 8 October 2017 speaks of punishment to be meted to be exemplary and justifiably harsh to act as deterrent against recurrence of such incidents. The suggestion of collective punishment if a perpetrator or abettor could not be identified, with even onlookers or victims to be penalized for not reporting incidents of ragging, is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality. In fact, learned Senior Counsel submitted that suggestion of a collective punishment cannot be countenanced at all. For want of identification, punishment meted out to collectively to even onlookers or victims for not reporting incidents of ragging is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The resolution of the Senate on 9 October 2017 was not better than the first meeting. There is no finding about any of the delinquent students with regard to their guilt. It is urged that in the absence of any findings, the Senate could not have proceeded to punish the delinquent students. It is stated that the complaints made with regard to the "Treasure Hunt" event which took place on the night of 14-15 August 2017 was not to be considered by the Senate in the decision making process since it did not relate to the incidents that allegedly occurred on 19-20 August 2017, for which the delinquent students were charged. It is, further, urged that the proceedings of the Senate do not reflect any consideration of the issues raised by or on behalf of the delinquent students and there is no material to indicate what transpired in the mind of the members of the Senate.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the students urged that they were required to be informed about their guilt and since senior students had also filed a complaint, they were required to be cross-examined. The summary sheet giving the summary of the written statements given by the delinquent students to SSAC, the statements in the appeal and extract of the hearing held reflects that the delinquent students were acting under dictation and, therefore, the decision of the Senate without assigning any reason, in awarding the punishments is a reflection of not only the proceedings being held in violation of the principles of natural justice but are also being arbitrary.
Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for one of the delinquent students, namely, Nishant Arya, who has also filed Special Appeal No.- 230 of 2018, has narrated the incident occurring from the date of orientation of the fresher students on 24 July 2017, to the "Treasure Hunt" on 14-15 August 2017 and the incidents of 19-20 August 2017. He has stated that Nishant Arya is a member of the HEC and his name and photograph is available to all and his room is in G-TOP wing. One of the complainant is a third year student, who seems to have roped in the name of Nishant Arya as an afterthought. He said that the summary sheet of one of the delinquent student Sachin Angural reflects that he was under coercion to make the statements. As a matter of fact, the summary sheet of Nishant Arya reflects his statement that fresher students came to his room of their own choice. He further submitted that imposing collective punishment is not reasonable and no role has been ascribed to Nishant Arya.
Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for one of the delinquent students, namely, Abhinav Arora, who has also preferred Special Appeal No.- 234 of 2018 has stated that all members of the HEC are members of the hostel level Anti Ragging Squad and it is only because of his presence as HEC member that he has been awarded a punishment of one year. It was also urged that Abhinav Arora has been made a scapegoat as no complaint was filed by anyone against him, which fact is reflected from a perusal of the summary sheet table. Learned counsel relied upon the summary table prepared by the Senate showing that neither Abhinav Arora was named in the complaint by the first year students nor named in any complaint by other students nor does his name appear in the statement given to S-SAC by his batch-mate. It was therefore, contended that there is no rationale behind the punishment of this delinquent student.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
In regard to the incident of ragging the Senate has punished 22 students. In regard to 16 students, the punishment has remain unchanged. 14 such students were punished with suspension for three years (six semesters), while two students were punished with suspension for one year (two semesters). However, in regard to six students, the punishment was reduced.
The students had been admitted to the prestigious IIT Kanpur. Judicial notice can be taken fact that only meritorious candidates are able to get admission. The course is a five years course. It is in this light that the Court has to examine whether adequate opportunity had been provided to the students by the Senate and whether the principles of natural justice had been duly complied with.
The first issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Court constituted Committee was required to record a finding of guilt as it has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Court constituted Committee had acted strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Court on 21 November 2017.
What had primarily weighed with the learned Judge was that the Court constituted Committee did not analyse the evidence that was brought against the students and it simply recommended punishment without even recording a finding of guilt and this seems to have been accepted by the Senate. The issue, therefore, is as to whether the Court constituted Committee was required to analyse the evidence and record a finding of guilt for imposing punishment.
In terms of the order dated 21 November 2017 on the clarification application filed by IIT Kanpur in the previous writ petition, wherein the clarification was sought whether the Senate can process the appeal filed by the students (including their personal hearing) through a Committee as per the practice followed by the Senate for disposing of the appeals, it was clarified by the Court in the previous writ petition that a Committee may be constituted by the Senate for the purpose of granting personal hearing to the students on a date to be fixed by the said Committee. The constitution of the said Committee would be such which would not include the members including Chairman of SSAC and the statements of the students recorded during the course of hearing shall be reduced in writing and be placed before the Senate with other relevant records strictly in conformity with the directions given in the judgment and order dated 13 November 2017 and the final decision on the appeals filed by the petitioners-students shall be taken by the Senate after due deliberations. Thus, in terms of the directions given by this Court in the previous writ petition, the appeals permitted to be filed by the delinquent students were required to be placed before the Senate and it is only for the sole purpose of granting personal hearing to the students and for reducing in writing the statements of the students recorded during the course of hearing, a Committee was permitted to be constituted by the Court.
It is, therefore, evident that the Committee was not required to analyze the evidence or to consider the role of the delinquent students or to record finding of guilt. It also appears from a perusal of the order dated 13 November 2017 passed by the Court in the previous writ petition that the directions were given for placing the appeals to be filed by the delinquent students before the Chairman of the Senate and then it was for the Appellate Authority to take a decision on the appeals. Therefore, the observation/finding of learned Judge that the Committee did not analyze the evidence and neither recorded reasons in support of its conclusion nor recorded finding of guilt cannot be countenanced.
We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Court constituted Committee and observations to the contrary made in the judgment are not justified.
The second issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Senate was required to record reasons for the conclusion arrived in the appeals filed before it by the students. The learned Judge has observed that it was not necessary for the Senate to record reasons since the recommending body was required to record reasons for the Senate to examine the same. As noted above, the appeals filed by the students were required to be decided by the Senate after "due delibrations".
The Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India & Ors.,5 had an occasion to deal with this aspect and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
"39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fairplay in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about re- cording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keep- ing in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi- judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that affect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweight the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.
.............
41. We may now come to the second part of the question, namely, whether the confirming authority is required to record its reasons for confirming the finding and sentence of the court-martial and the Central Government or the competent authority entitled to deal with the post-confirma- tion petition is required to record its reasons for the order passed by it on such petition. For that purpose it will be necessary to determine whether the Act or the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') ex- pressly or by necessary implication dispense with the requirement of recording reasons. We propose to consider this aspect in a broader perspective to include the findings and sentence of the court-martial and examine whether reasons are required to be recorded at the stage of (i) recording of findings and sentence by the court-martial; (ii) confirmation of the findings and sentence of the court-martial; and (iii) consideration of post-confirmation petition.
................
44. From the provisions referred to above it is evident that the judge-advocate plays an important role during the courts of trial at a general court-martial and he is enjoined to maintain an impartial position. The court-martial records its findings after the judge-advocate has summed up the evidence and has given his opinion upon the legal bearing of the case. The members of the court have to express their opinion as to the finding by word of mouth on each charge separately and the finding on each charge is to be recorded simply as a finding of "guilty" or of "not guilty". It is also required that the sentence should be announced forthwith in open court. Moreover Rule 66(1) requires reasons to be recorded for its recommendation in cases where the court makes a recommendation to mercy. There is no such requirement in other provisions relating to recording of findings and sentence. Rule 66(1) proceeds on the basis that there is no such requirement because if such a requirement was there it would not have been necessary to have a specific provision for recording of reasons for the recommendation to mercy. The said provisions thus negative a requirement to give reasons for its finding and sentence by the court- martial and reasons are required to be recorded only in cases where the court martial makes a recommendation to mercy. In our opinion, therefore, at the stage of recording of findings and sentence the court-martial is not required to record its reasons and at that stage reasons are only required for the recommendation to mercy if the court martial makes such a recommendation."
(emphasis supplied) It is, therefore, clear that the requirement of recording reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which governs exercise of powers by administrative authorities. However, a confirming authority may not be required to record reasons in the context of Army Rules.
In Dr. Anurika Vaish Vs. Union of India & Ors.,6 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court emphasised that a person has a legal right to a reasoned decision. The Court also emphasized that even where a collective decision is taken by a body of people, then too if it deals with individual rights of a person and is governed by Rules, Regulations and Statutes, then it has to record reasons and the observations are as follows:-
"139.While recording reasons for decisions in the procedure for Statutory Tribunals, the learned authors further say that reasons should form part of the decision. The very purpose of such recording of reason is to show a person that he is receiving justice. The facts for determination have to be based on evidence and while recording reasons this has to be discussed. The statement of reasons must show that the point at issue has been considered between the parties and to support it by evidence for a conclusion. Where there is a conflict of evidence, the decision making authority ought to state its findings.
140. Any departure in opinion requires the recording of reasons which falls within the scope of judicial control. This is necessary to find out any justiciable flaw and is the foundation of access to judicial review. The learned authors say that the rules of fairness require that a presumption should be in favour of giving reasons rather than withholding it.
141.There is yet another aspect namely where a collective decision is taken by a body of people, a decision of a policy matter or a declaration of the manner of functioning or any other administrative matter may not necessarily require giving of reasons but where a decision making process which deals with the individual rights of a person and is governed by rules, regulations and statutes, then the power to decide is conferred by law and regulated by it. In such a situation, even a collective decision by a body cannot afford to be subjective and it has to record reasons. A debate between recording of brief reasons and reasons in detail is always a matter of adjudication. In our opinion, even in a collective decision the reasons even if brief should contain the material on the basis whereof such a reason is being recorded. Any form of vagueness or just cryptically mentioning the conclusion would not suffice to show that reasons have been discussed even while forming a collective opinion. A mere recital of vague reasons would not be sufficient nor a matter like the present one where the aggrieved party has a right to know the reasons for the decision being taken either for or against him."
(emphasis supplied) In Chairman, Disciplinary Committee, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors,.7, the Supreme Court, while considering whether an Appellate Authority is required to record reasons while affirming an order of imposing penalty observed that an elaborate reasoning may not be necessary but it should not be understood to mean that even brief reasons are not required to be given in an order of affirmance. The observations are as follows:-
"9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case,it has been observed that:
"36............The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
The above observation, in our opinion, really means that the order of affirmance need not contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in the order of the original authority, but it cannot be understood to mean that even brief reasons need not be given in an order of affirmance. To take a contrary view would mean that appellate authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-line orders stating that they agree with the view of the lower authority."
We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that in a matter as in the present case where career of students admitted in a prestigious Engineering Institute is at stake, it was absolutely necessary for the Senate to have record reasons for imposing punishment. The absence would result in denial of principles of natural justice. What we find from the records is that the Senate has not given any reason at all for imposing punishment upon the 22 students. This was also necessary for the reason that even the learned Judge while requiring the Senate to decide the appeal has clearly observed that a decision should be taken after "due delibrations". Though it may be correct that the Senate which has passed the order for punishment consists of about two hundred members but what needs to be kept in mind is the career of students, who had been admitted to a prestigious Institute. The reasons for punishment were also required to be stated to the students, who had been charged for committing ragging. Twenty two students were charged and punished for committing ragging. The students put forth their defence not only before the Committee constituted by the Court but also before the Senate. The Committee prepared a summary chart and table which was placed before the Senate. The Senate was required to deal with each individual case of the students and at least give brief reasons for imposing punishment upon the students. The matter would have to be remitted to the Senate for taking a decision in the appeals in the light of the observations made above and after recording reasons in regard to each of the student.
We have already observed that the Court constituted Committee was not required to analyse the evidence or record a finding of guilt. It would, therefore, not be necessary to remit the matter to the Court constituted Committee. Appeals had been filed before the Senate and pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 21 November 2017, the Senate had take a decision. We have also set aside the decision taken by the Senate. The judgement of the learned Judge, therefore, deserves to be set aside to the extent indicated above.
Till a decision is taken by the Senate, which we would expect would be taken as expeditiously as is possible, we leave it open to the Director of IIT Kanpur to pass appropriate orders with respect to the entitlement of the students to participate in the examination as also to reside in the Campus within a period of two weeks.
All the aforesaid Special Appeals bearing No. 175 of 2018, Special Appeal No.210 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 211 of 2018, Special Appeal No.212 of 2018, Special Appeal No. 214 of 2018, Special Appeal No.197 of 2018 and Special Appeal No.230 of 2018 stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Date: 29 May 2018 NSC (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Jayant Banerji, J.)