Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 – s.6(1) – Appellants after completing MBBS course were pursuing PG Degree Course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and were also working as residents in a Hospital attached to their College – A student, a year junior to the appellants, resident in the same Department and pursuing the same course committed suicide – FIR registered against the appellants – Appellants suspended by the Dean of the Hospital and the College – Bail granted to the appellants by High Court with certain conditions – While some conditions were later relaxed/recalled, condition no.(iv) on the appellants to not enter their College and the Hospital was maintained – On appeal, held: To take appropriate action u/s.6(1), the concerned head of the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied that the allegations against the student have been found to be true, whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed – In the present case, the order of suspension does not even record any such finding or prima facie view – It was not passed by virtue of power entrusted u/s.6(1) but was on the ground that there was an FIR against the appellants – Thus, order of suspension is not referable to s.6(1) – Further, apart from s.6(1), no other statutory provision has been referred to or relied upon – On balancing the competing claims, the condition is relaxed and the appellants are permitted to go back to the College and the Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to the conditions as stated, otherwise the pendency of prosecution against them will add further penalty in the form of prejudicing their career – Any such adverse impact will negate their rights u/Art.21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.174 and 164 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 r/w s.34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 – Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 – s.22(1) – Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Medical Council of India (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/Institutions) Regulations, 2009 – Paras 7, 8 – Constitution of India – Art.21.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notice was issued to see if going back to the College would not be feasible, whether the Appellants could be allowed migration to any other college/institution so that both the elements viz. (i) relating to the career and prospects of the Appellants and (ii) the interest of the prosecution in keeping the witnesses away from the possibility of influence by the Appellants; would get satisfied and taken care of. The matter has travelled far from what was noted and noticed in the beginning and now the respondents have placed the Order of Suspension of the Appellants on record and insist that so long as the Order of Suspension is in operation, the Appellants cannot be allowed to go back to their course of study. [Para 23][1029-G; 1030-B]
1.2 It must be noted:-
a) The Appellants are three lady doctors who are pursuing Post Graduate medical course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai and have completed two years out of three years’ of course. The course is well coveted and considered to be a specialty course in that field. The Appellants do not appear to be original residents of Mumbai and, as such, it cannot be said that they or their families have deep-rooted presence in Mumbai.
b) As noticed by this Court in Sumit Mehta, if the law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved, the Appellants as presumably innocent persons, are entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and are entitled to pursue their course of study so long as exercise of said right does not hamper smooth conduct and progress of the prosecution. c) The stand taken by the State through the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra, is that the Appellants can prosecute their Post Graduate course in future after conclusion of the trial. Said submission and the observation by the High Court in para 11 of the order are not correct. Even a convict is allowed to have academic pursuits while undergoing sentence and develop his potential as a human being to the fullest. The State apparatus must facilitate such pursuits rather than hamper any attempts in that behalf.
d) It is a matter of record that the statements of all material witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In fact, the High Court went to the extent of ensuring that such statements are recorded so that witnesses could not be won over by the Appellants after they were enlarged on bail. Therefore, the apprehension that the witnesses could be influenced is not quite correct. e) The majority of witnesses to be examined by the prosecution appear to be in permanent employment of the College and the Hospital. It will be difficult to imagine that three lady doctors who do not otherwise belong to Mumbai will be able to influence any such witnesses by their mere presence in the College and the Hospital.
f) The Appellants require to put in the last year of their course and as stated, the actual period that they need to undergo by way of training is only nine months. [Para 24][1030-D-H; 1031A-E] Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC
570 : [2013] 10 SCR 125 – relied on.
1.3 The facts on record indicate that the report of the AntiRagging Committee and the Order of Suspension were issued on the same date i.e. on 27.05.2019. The submission that the Order of Suspension was not based on the report of the AntiRagging Committee merits acceptance because of following features viz. (a) the outward number for the Order of Suspension is NDN/172 while that of the report of Anti-Ragging Committee is NDN/183, which means the Order of Suspension was issued earlier to the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee; (b) both the communications are under the signature of the Dean of the College and the Hospital and yet, the Order of Suspension does not make any reference to the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee; (c) the Order of Suspension is based purely on the registration of FIR registered against the Appellants which is why “taking cognizance of this” the Order of Suspension was passed; and (d) when a request for revocation of suspension was made, it was rejected on 25.10.2019 because of order dated 09.08.2019 of the High court and not because of the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee. [Para 25][1031-F-H; 1032-A-B]
1.4 To take appropriate action under Section 6(1) of Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, the concerned head of the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied that the allegations against the student have been found to be true, whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed. The Order of Suspension does not even record any such finding or prima facie view. As a matter of fact, the Order of Suspension was not passed by virtue of power entrusted under Section 6(1) of 1999 Act but was based on the grounds that the Appellants were creating hurdles in the enquiry by the police and that there was an FIR against them. The Order of Suspension is not referable to Section 6(1) of 1999 Act. Apart from Section 6(1), no other statutory provision has been referred to or relied upon. Para 8.1 of Medical Council of India (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/Institutions) Regulations, is applicable to cases where a student has been ‘foundguilty of ragging’ which presupposes valid exercise of power. The effects contemplated by said Para 8.1 come into operation only thereafter. Neither the provisions of 1999 Act nor 2009 Regulations get attracted to the present case. [Paras 26-28][1032-D-G]
1.5 A submission is raised that in a matter arising from the request for relaxation of condition, no collateral attack on the Suspension Order be permitted. It is submitted that the Appellants are free to challenge the Order of Suspension and so long as that order is not set aside, the Appellants cannot be allowed to come back to the College or the Hospital. No merit is found in the aforesaid submissions. Relaxation sought in respect of condition no. (iv) takes within its fold all submissions with respect to matters arising from the registration of the crime and steps undertaken pursuant thereto. Since the Order of Suspension was passed purely as a result of registration of crime and did not have any roots in statutory powers conferred under Section 6 of 1999 Act, this Court can certainly grant redress to the Appellants. [Paras 29, 30][1033-A-C]
1.6 While balancing the competing claims, the Appellants must be allowed to go back to their courses of study otherwise the pendency of prosecution against them will add further penalty in the form of prejudicing their career. Any such adverse impact will negate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Considering the matter in its entirety and especially when the Appellants have to undergo training under the same guide and in the same institution where they were registered, ends of justice would be met if condition no. (iv) as laid down by the High Court is relaxed and the Appellants are permitted to go back to the College and the Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to the conditions as stated. It is made clear that the Appellants shall be permitted to pursue their courses of study regardless of the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019. [Paras 31-33][1033-D-F; 1034E]
Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (2018) 16 SCC 74 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.