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) Suspension, Enquiry, Current Status 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
(2.) The petitioner has assailed the following orders passed by the respondent University: (i) The order of suspension dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Proctor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh; (ii) The order dated 28.03.2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the disciplinary committee and respond to the query, which he was failed to answer on the earlier occasion; (iii) The chargesheet dated 16.03.2019.
(3.) The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to be issued to the authorities to permit the petitioner to submit his project work and allow him to appear in the viva-voce test, in which he has been left out and to declare the result of the petitioner.;