CHINTU KUMARI Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) This Writ Petition seeks quashing of the order dated August 22, 2016 which is the order of the Appellate Authority (Vice Chancellor) of the Jawaharlal Nehru University through which the Petitioner has been punished with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) [initially Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)] and has been ordered to file an undertaking in a prescribed format.

(3.) The facts as contended by Ms. Suroor Mander, learned counsel for the petitioner are, the Petitioner is a student pursuing her M.Phil, at the Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Science, having completed her M.A. from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Petitioner has been punished for 'participating in the organisation of the event' on February 9, 2016 at the JNU campus where some 'objectionable slogans' were allegedly raised, which the Petitioner has consistently denied and she and the student's union have categorically condemned such slogans. The High Level Enquiry Committee (hereinafter HLEC) had sent notices to the Petitioner seeking her presence before the Committee and asking her to bring evidence to defend herself. At no point was the Petitioner informed of the exact charges against her. In response to the notices the Petitioner had on February 25, 2016 and February 26, 2016 had written to the HLEC denying raising alleged "anti- national" slogans and asked them to share the details of the charges and provide her with the evidence so that she can prepare her defence. However, the High Level Committee did not respond to the Petitioner's letters or share the evidence so that the Petitioner could mount a cohesive defence. Without responding to the issues raised in above dated letters submitted by the Petitioner, on 14 March 2016, the High Level Committee issued her a Show Cause Notice finding her guilty of "(xxv) Any other act which may be considered by the VC or any other competent authority to an act of violation of discipline and conduct" which is residual clause available to the Vice Chancellor. It is contended by Ms. Mander, the Petitioner was not charged with organizing the meeting, or of raising slogans. Neither description of the conduct by which she did any of this, nor the details of what material was there in support thereof was supplied to the petitioner.