AJAY BHANOT,J. - (1.) This judgment has been structured by dividing it into various sections to facilitate analysis and for easy read. They are: A. Reliefs sought B. Arguments of learned counsels for the parties C. Facts (i). Background (ii). Suspension order : Consequences (iii). Suspension order : Validity D Legal Issues common in all writ petitions E. Stands of various respondents on affidavits (i).Response of IIT BHU (ii).Response of AMU (iii).Response of BHU (iv).Response of UGC (v).Response of UoI F. Evolution of Fundamental Rights by courts (i) Legislative lag, executive inertia and fundamental rights G Process of law and the courts : Current State and Contemporary Challenges H. Education (i). Importance and scope (ii). Role and obligation of universities I Discipline in Universities: Concept, Need and Challenges (i). Violence, intimidation and moral turpitude (ii). Communal disturbances in universities (iii). Discipline in universities (iv). Statutory approach to maintaining discipline J. Statutory Regime of Punishments in light of Article 21 and Doctrine of Proportionality K. Punishments and Article 21 (i). Right to human dignity (ii). Supreme Court on human dignity (iii). Comparative International Jurisprudence (iv). Constitutionality of punishments under the statutes (v). Systemic responses : Responsibilities of the State and the universities L Reform, Self Development and Rehabilitation: (i). Role of universities in achieving behavioural change (ii). Imbibing constitutional values and purging communal hatred (iii). Present discontents of students and solutions (iv). Creation of reform, self development, rehabilitation programmes (v). Concerns of universities regarding discipline and restraints during the reformation, self development and rehabilitation programme M. Proportionality and Punishment N Conclusions and Reliefs O. Appendix A. Reliefs sought The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent no. 4, Assistant Registrar (ACAD), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, suspending him from all privileges and activities of the University and hostel. The petitioner has further challenged the consequential order dated 03.07.2019, wherein the respondent University declined to consider the case for admission to any of the courses in the University to the academic sessions 2019-20.
(2.) The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission in M.A. History for the academic session 2019-21. B. Arguments of the learned counsel for parties
(3.) Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutes of the university. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate. There is no provision for reform and rehabilitation of delinquent students in the statutes, which has resulted in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.;