LI Network
Published on: 29 January, 2024 at 14:40 IST
The Allahabad High Court, in a case related to numerous fake “ODs” at Amity University, has ruled that in proceedings against a large group of individuals, it is not always obligatory to conduct an elaborate inquiry for each person involved.
“OD” refers to attendance earned by students through participation in training, seminars, workshops, or other extracurricular activities.
The Court emphasized that, when dealing with a considerable number of individuals, a detailed inquiry against each person may not be imperative.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh stated: “It is now well settled that violation of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula but depends on facts of each case. Where enquiry is not against any particular individual but broad based and involves a large number of persons, it is not always necessary to hold detailed enquiry against each individual. If on examination of facts, it emerges that a fair procedure has been adopted without causing any material prejudice to any person then the courts have declined to interfere.”
The court discussed the concept of a “useless formality,” noting that if no real prejudice is caused to the parties, striking down an action on the grounds of violating natural justice would be an empty formality.
The Court held that, although procedural lapses may exist, there was no violation of natural justice principles to invalidate the entire disciplinary proceedings.
The Court acknowledged the lenient view taken by the university in meting out punishments for mass indiscipline involving fake “ODs.” It emphasized that not addressing such indiscipline would send the wrong message. The court upheld the university’s inquiry, stating that declaring it vitiated would result in prolonged suffering for the students.
Factual Background
The case involved a student who was suspended from Amity University for creating unauthorized and fake “ODs” during the 7th semester. Disciplinary proceedings led to the student’s rustication for six months, later reduced to three months on appeal.
The Writ Court set aside the punishment, citing violations of natural justice, and issued directions to the university to reevaluate the student’s mark sheet.
High Court Verdict
The Allahabad High Court noted that the university conducted the inquiry at three levels: Departmental Committee, Proctorial Board, and University Level Committee. It observed that the student was aware of the charges based on email exchanges and had not raised objections during the inquiry or appeal.
The Court referred to the principle that in cases of mass cheating, it may not be necessary to provide each candidate with a hearing opportunity. It also invoked the “useless formality” concept, stating that, if no real prejudice is evident, striking down an action based on natural justice violations would be an empty formality.
The Court concluded that the inquiry, though broader in nature, did not violate natural justice principles. While refusing to interfere with the removal of certain endorsements on the student’s mark sheet, the court emphasized the need for a balanced approach by the university in maintaining discipline and adopting a reformative approach for students.
The case title is “Amity University And 4 Others v. State Of U P And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. – 637 of 2023].”