Introduction

The case of Apurva Y K vs South Asian University (2024 DHC 360) adjudicated by the Delhi High Court on January 18, 2024, marks a significant precedent in the realm of administrative and constitutional law in India. The petitioner, Apurva Y K, a student enrolled in the Master of Laws (LLM) program at the South Asian University (SAU), challenged the University's decision to expel her under allegations of misconduct. Central to the dispute was whether SAU, an intergovernmental educational institution, falls within the ambit of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner was expelled from SAU following a Show Cause Notice issued on November 26, 2022, alleging various incidents of misconduct, including unauthorized entry into administrative offices and use of abusive language towards university officials. Apurva denied all allegations, asserting that her actions were motivated by concern for a fellow student's medical emergency and criticized SAU's lack of institutional support during the crisis.

After failing to address her grievances through the University’s internal mechanisms, Apurva filed a writ petition under Article 226, seeking the quashing of the expulsion orders dated February 17 and March 2, 2023. The crux of her argument was that the disciplinary action violated the principles of natural justice and due process as outlined in SAU's Proctorial Committee Rules and Regulations (PCRR).

The High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, meticulously analyzed whether SAU qualifies as a "public authority" under Article 226 and examined the procedural fairness of the University's disciplinary process. The Court concluded that SAU, by virtue of its designation and functions, does perform public duties and thus falls within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the Court found that SAU's disciplinary proceedings against Apurva were procedurally flawed, lacking transparency and fairness, leading to the quashing of the expulsion orders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced landmark cases to delineate the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226:

• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology (2002): Clarified that writs under Article 226 are not confined to "State" entities defined under Article 12 but can extend to any authority performing public functions.
• Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajiee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (2005): Established that private bodies performing public duties are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union Of India (2005): Affirmed that organizations like the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which perform public functions, are subject to Article 226.
• Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015): Reinforced that non-governmental organizations not performing public duties are not amenable to writ petitions under Article 226.
• St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023): Highlighted that only actions with a public law element by institutions performing public functions are subject to judicial review under Article 226.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a two-pronged test to determine writ jurisdiction:

1. Public Function Test: Whether the institution performs public functions akin to those of the State.
2. Procedural Fairness Test: Whether the disciplinary actions adhered to principles of natural justice and due process.

Applying the first test, the Court recognized SAU as performing a public function by providing higher education to students, aligning with governmental objectives of educational advancement. Despite SAU being an intergovernmental body, its role in imparting education rendered it subject to Article 226.

Regarding the second test, the Court scrutinized the University's adherence to its own Proctorial Committee Rules and Regulations. It found significant procedural lapses, including the lack of disclosure of evidence to the petitioner, absence of a fair hearing, and biased handling of testimonies, which violated the principles of natural justice.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for intergovernmental and private educational institutions in India:

• Expanded Writ Jurisdiction: Reinforces that institutions performing public functions, irrespective of their intergovernmental status, are subject to judicial oversight under Article 226.
• Emphasis on Due Process: Underscores the necessity for educational institutions to adhere strictly to their own procedural rules when disciplining students to avoid legal repercussions.
• Precedent for Future Cases: Sets a benchmark for similar cases involving allegations of misconduct within educational institutions, ensuring that procedural fairness is non-negotiable.
• Limits on Institutional Immunity: Demonstrates that claims of immunity under intergovernmental agreements or specific statutes do not shield institutions from adhering to constitutional principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Unlike writs under Article 32, which are primarily for the enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 226 has a broader scope, allowing for reliefs beyond fundamental rights enforcement.

Public Function Test

This legal test determines whether an entity performs duties similar to those of the State. If so, even if the entity is a private or intergovernmental body, it may fall under the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

Natural Justice

Natural justice refers to the legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions to ensure fairness in legal proceedings. It encompasses principles such as the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.

Proctorial Committee Rules and Regulations (PCRR)

The PCRR are the internal guidelines governing disciplinary procedures within the University. They outline the processes to be followed when handling misconduct allegations against students, ensuring due process and fairness.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's judgment in Apurva Y K v. South Asian University unequivocally establishes that intergovernmental universities performing public functions are subject to the writ jurisdiction of Indian High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. By highlighting the imperative of adhering to due process and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, the Court reinforces the accountability of educational institutions toward their students. This decision not only fortifies the enforcement of students' rights but also ensures that institutions like SAU cannot exploit their intergovernmental status to bypass essential legal and procedural standards.