Court says Equal Opportunity Cell should ordinarily handle student complaints if University Regulations provide for it; inquiry report, if ready, to be kept in sealed cover.
The Allahabad High Court has prima facie held that where a university’s regulations provide for an Equal Opportunity Cell, and the aggrieved students themselves seek an inquiry by that mechanism after excluding a conflicted person, there is ordinarily no occasion to appoint Judicial Officers to conduct the inquiry.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh passed the order in a special appeal filed by Dr. Deepak Sharma against the State of U.P. and others. The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by two students, who had sought multiple directions from the court, including a mandamus to have their complaints examined by an independent and properly constituted Equity Committee, excluding the appellant and any person having a conflict of interest.
The students’ prayers also included requests for removal of the appellant from administrative, evaluative, research, and hostel-related roles pending inquiry; preservation of CCTV footage and other evidence; protection from retaliation; and monitoring of the inquiry by the court.
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel argued that since an Equal Opportunity Cell was already available under the University framework, the inquiry should have been conducted by that body rather than by outsiders. Counsel for the University stated that the formation of the committee had been accepted to ensure fairness and transparency. Counsel for the student respondents said they had originally sought an inquiry under the Equal Opportunity Cell regulations, but did not object when the University agreed to the court’s proposal for inquiry by Judicial Officers.
The Division Bench observed that, prima facie, when the University had an existing Equal Opportunity Cell and the petitioners themselves had asked for that mechanism to act after excluding the appellant, there was no justification for directing an inquiry by Judicial Officers. The court noted that even serious allegations do not automatically justify taking the matter out of the University’s domain, especially where student welfare and redressal mechanisms are already provided by the institution’s regulations.
Since the inquiry report was due the next day, the court directed that the special appeal be listed afresh on 29 September 2026. If the inquiry report had already been prepared, it was ordered to be placed before the court in a sealed cover. The Division Bench also stayed further proceedings in the writ petition until the next date of hearing.
The court clarified that the appellant’s request to stay the directions contained in paragraph 17 of the impugned order would be considered later, as the Bench had, at this stage, only examined the scope of the inquiry and the relevant university regulations.
Bottom Line :
University matters - Where University Regulations provide for inquiry by Equal Opportunity Cell and writ petitioners themselves seek inquiry by such Cell after excluding conflicted person, inquiry by Judicial Officers ought not to be directed prima facie - Further proceedings in writ petition stayed and inquiry report, if prepared, directed to be kept in sealed cover.
Statutory provision(s): UGC Regulations, 2026, Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, University Regulations
Dr. Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987209
