'You don't need reservation' : Allahabad HC probes caste bias claim at NLU Prayagraj

The Allahabad High Court has ordered an independent inquiry into allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination against a faculty member at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University (RPNLU), Prayagraj, and directed a re-evaluation of a student's answer sheets.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar passed the order on September 16 while hearing a writ petition filed by a PhD research scholar and a fifth-semester B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student, who alleged that Dr. Deepak Sharma, Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys' Hostel, had used his academic and administrative authority to humiliate and retaliate against the student over his caste.

According to the petition, the student had submitted a complaint to the Vice-Chancellor on August 20, alleging that his answer sheets were being evaluated more strictly because of his caste. He said he had secured the highest marks in Constitutional Law-I, a gold medal subject, and alleged that a remark made by Sharma at the start of the fourth semester was an indirect reference to his performance. The complaint further alleged that Sharma had made public remarks about caste and reservation on multiple occasions, including asking the student why he needed reservation benefits given he came from a "good family." The student sought an independent review of his Constitutional Law-II answer scripts and other papers. The petitioners said the university took no action despite repeated reminders and further complaints.

The court appointed Judge of Small Causes Court Archana Singh and Chief Judicial Magistrate Arun Kumar Yadava to conduct the inquiry, which will examine whether students from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities faced caste-based humiliation or discrimination from Sharma or any other university employee, and whether their complaints were handled in accordance with applicable regulations. The inquiry officers have been authorised to record statements from the petitioners, Sharma and others, and to call for university records. The court directed that the substance of the allegations be put to anyone facing adverse findings, with a fair opportunity to respond.

The court also directed the Vice-Chancellor to constitute an independent committee to re-evaluate the student's answer sheets in subjects taught by Sharma, as well as any other subjects the student flags, with the committee required to submit its report within a week. It barred Sharma from any role in the student's evaluation, disciplinary matters, or hostel-related issues concerning the petitioners for the time being.

The court clarified that it was not recording any finding on the truth of the allegations, noting only that their serious nature required examination by an impartial agency after giving the accused faculty member a full opportunity to be heard.