On February 28, 2024, the Maharashtra High Court in its hearing asked the Vice-Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University (MGAHV), Dr Bhimaraya Metri, to file an affidavit. This came after the court authorisation to file an affidavit by the Registrar Dharvesh Katheriya, turned out to be dissatisfactory for the court.
“We are not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University. 2. We notices that the Vice Chancellor, day in and day out, is passing the orders against the students in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice,” read the lines of the high court’s response.
These affidavits are pertaining to a petition, filed by Vivek Mishra, a student of MGAHV. The 21-year-old Vivek, filed a petition on February 13, with regards to his suspension and expulsion. He has been protesting since February 1 against the same. This protest involved a hunger strike starting on February 5, which came to a halt for a few days owing to the health deterioration of the protesting student.
The first court hearing concerning Vivek’s petition took place on February 26, in which, the high court passed an order to recall both the orders of suspension and expulsion issued on January 27 and February 7, respectively, by the university.
Mishra has been protesting against the suspension and expulsion orders. The university has alleged that he was part of the protest, along with a handful of other students, which was held on Republic Day. This protest was against the alleged unlawful appointment of the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Dr Bhimaraya Metri.
What does the affidavit say:
On February 20, Registrar Dharvesh Katheriya filed an affidavit as the court authorised him to, which mentioned only recalling the suspension order, issued on January 27. However, the affidavit did not mention recalling the expulsion order, issued on February 7.
“It is submitted that the respondent -University was justified in taking drastic action to maintain the academic atmosphere of the respondent-University and to inculcate discipline in the students, particularly during the examination period. However, the respondents have now decided to hold a full-fledged enquiry by giving the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself and conduct the same in accordance with law. As such, the respondent-University has decided to recall the order dated 27-1-24 (suspension order) and immediately conduct an enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the principle of natural justice,” the order read.
Following this, the court found “inadvertent errors” in the affidavit which had failed to mention expulsion and addressed only the suspension order.
This further led to the filing of another affidavit, as authorised by Maharashtra High Court, by the Registrar. The second affidavit read, “That, we had filed submissions on dated 20.02.2024 wherein two inadvertent errors had occurred and therefore I am filing the present additional affidavit in that regard.”
Referring to one of the "errors'', the affidavit went on to state that they are recalling an order dated February 7, which was regarding Vivek’s expulsion. “Further, Responded No. 2 University has decided to recall even the Order dated 07.02.2024 (ANNX -VIII; Pg. No. 31 of the petition) and fresh order suspending the allotment of the hostel during the pendency of the enquiry against the Petitioner," read the affidavit.
After this, as both affidavits came out to be dissatisfactory, the high court authorised VC to file a fresh affidavit. The VC's affidavit, filed yesterday, March 5, alleges that the arts student Vivek Mishra has been involved in some "illegal" activities. Along with several other points mentioned in the VC’s affidavit, it read, “The above conduct and the chequered history was considered by the Disciplinary Committee on 26.01.2024 itself and having regard to the persistent illegal activities of the petitioner was decided to issue show cause notice to all the students including the petitioner.”
In addition to this, it also read, "However, in order to comply with the principle of natural justice, the registrar has filed the instant matter on 20.02.2024 without tarnishing the image of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. However, by this affidavit I have attempted to explain the catastrophic condition in the University with necessitated passing of the impugned order and in my humble opinion cannot be termed as arbitrary or inflagnant of the principles of natural justice. The chequered history of the conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that such drastic action was required to be taken against the student and even now willing to proceed against him in accordance with law."
The court has listed the next hearing on March 13, 2024.
What happened to other students?
Along with Vivek, Jatin Chaudhary is another student who took the legal route by filing a petition, alleging his expulsion was without a legitimate cause. The Bombay Nagpur Bench has listed Chaudhary’s second hearing on March 13.
This comes after the university submitted a Written Statement (WS) to the court on February 28, about recalling Jatin’s expulsion. The WS read, “The drastic action in the nature of the Impugned Order in the peculiar facts, circumstances and situation prevailing in the University was required to be taken. Now, the Respondent University has decided to withdraw the Impugned Order dated 07.02.2024 and conduct an enquiry against the Petitioner in accordance with law.”
In addition to this, Niranjan Oberay, a PhD student, was one of the students against whom the university had taken action. The university had expelled Oberay alleging that he, along with two other students, raised slogans during a Republic Day event against the alleged unlawful appointment of Vice-Chancellor, Dr Bhimaraya Metri.
The expelled students include Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Rajneesh Ambedkar while Ram Chandra and Vivek Mishra were suspended. Since then, Vivek Mishra, along with others, has been on an indefinite strike urging the revoking of the suspension.
When this PhD student took the matter to court by filing a petition against the illegitimate reasons behind his expulsion, the college responded that it was a mistake. "It is, however, submitted that the respondents have realized their mistake by wrongly using the word “cancellation of his registration” instead of suspending the registration,” read the university’s response.
Despite this admission by the university, Niranjan alleged that he is yet to be permitted entry inside the campus. "Despite the court order, my attempts to enter the university premises on February 17 failed as the guards restricted me, stating that without the institute's permission letter, I would not be allowed."
"Concerning this, on the same day, I wrote an email to the administration attaching the court order stating that the court had stayed the case," he said.
Moreover, the 32-year-old Niranjan filed a Contempt of Court case on March 1, Friday
