Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has questioned the single judge’s order dated Sept 16 directing an inquiry by judicial officers into allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination at Dr Rajendra Prasad National Law University (NLU), Prayagraj, observing that the university’s equal opportunity cell should, prima facie, have been allowed to examine the allegations.A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh, while hearing a special appeal filed by NLU professor Dr Deepal Sharma against the Sept 16 order, has stayed further proceedings in the writ petition until the next listing of the special appeal.The matter concerns the allegations raised by two students, a PhD research scholar and a fifth-semester BA LLB (Hons.) student of the university, against the head of the law department, who is also the warden of the boys’ hostel. Their grievance was that respondent professor-warden used academic and administrative authority as an instrument of caste-based humiliation and retaliation. The 5th-semester student had submitted a complaint to the vice-chancellor on Aug 20, alleging that the university had failed to act on his grievance despite repeated reminders and further complaints.In the complaint, the student alleged that professor-warden had remarked at the beginning of the fourth semester that “the one who got the highest marks in constitutional law, let him get the highest marks in my subject now”. The student further alleged that the stricter evaluation of his answer sheets was due to his caste and claimed that the concerned faculty member had publicly made insulting remarks concerning caste and reservation.One such alleged remark quoted in the complaint was “you come from a good family; why do you need reservation?The single judge had 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 to the HC. The inquiry was to ascertain whether students belonging to the SC-ST communities were subjected to caste-based humiliation or discrimination by professor-warden or any other person employed in or working for gain in the NLU.However, while challenging the order of single judge, Dr Sharma in his special appeal before the division bench took the plea that the university already had an equal opportunity cell and that the students themselves had sought an inquiry through that mechanism, after excluding the concerned respondent from the process. The appellant argued that, in these circumstances, the inquiry ought to have been conducted through the university’s institutional mechanism rather than by Judicial Officers.The university, on the other hand, submitted that during the writ proceedings it had agreed to the formation of the committee proposed by the court to ensure fairness and transparency. Counsel for the students also submitted that although they had initially sought an inquiry under the Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, they did not oppose the inquiry by judicial officers after the university had agreed to the court’s proposal.The bench, after considering the submissions, observed that when an equal opportunity cell was available in the university, and the students themselves had sought an inquiry through that cell, excluding the concerned respondent, there was prima facie no occasion for the inquiry to be conducted by judicial officers.The bench noted that the report of the judicial officers’ inquiry was scheduled to be submitted on Sept 24. It directed that the special appeal be placed as a fresh case before the court on Sept 29. The court further directed that, if the inquiry report had already been prepared, it should be placed before the court in a sealed cover for consideration on the next date.
