This article provides a case study analysis of Ankita Kailash Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., focusing on the critical legal positions established regarding the rights of accused individuals to pursue academic activities under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case also examines the extent of statutory powers of educational institutions to issue suspension orders.
Background
Dr. Ankita Khandelwal, Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja, and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehra, were Post Graduate students of Gynaecology and Obstetrics at Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai. In May 2019, a junior student, Dr. Payal Tadvi, committed suicide. The appellants were accused of harassing Dr. Tadvi, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 306 and Section 34 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999. Consequently, they were arrested, and their bail application was rejected by the Bombay Session Court.
Legal Proceedings
The appellants appealed to the Bombay
High Court, which granted them bail with specific conditions, including
restrictions on leaving Mumbai, entering Topiwala National Medical College, and
the suspension of their medical licenses until the trial concluded. The Dean of
the college rejected their request to revoke the suspension, and the
Maharashtra Medical Council suspended the licenses of Dr. Ankita Kailash
Khandelwal and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehar.
Challenging the non-relaxation of the
condition restricting their re-entry into the college, the appellants
approached the Apex Court.
Judgement
The Supreme Court relaxed the
condition, permitting the appellants to resume their studies at the college and
hospital, subject to certain stipulations:
·
The
Appellants must not influence or attempt to influence any witnesses.
·
They must
attend all trial court dates unless specifically exempted.
·
Accommodation
in the college and hospital would be subject to the Dean's permission and the
requirements of their Post Graduate program.
·
The
Appellants should maximize study leave and stay away from the institution
during holidays and vacations.
·
Authorities
must ensure the safety and protection of all individuals, including the
Appellants, in case of any untoward incidents.
Key Legal Positions
Right to Education and Article 21
The court emphasized that an accused is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. It cited Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), affirming that the appellants,
as presumptively innocent individuals, are entitled to fundamental rights,
including the right to liberty under Article 21, allowing them to continue
their education as long as it does not impede the prosecution's progress. The
court noted that even convicts are allowed academic pursuits to develop their
potential, which the State should facilitate.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted
to include the right to education. This interpretation supports the view that
access to education is a basic human right, essential for personal development
and societal progress.
Suspension Order and Statutory Powers
The court found that the suspension
order issued by the educational institute did not have appropriate statutory
support under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999.
The court noted that the order was based on the FIR and alleged hurdles in the
police enquiry, rather than a prima facie
finding of guilt for ragging or abetment of ragging, which is required under
the Act.
Section 6 of the Maharashtra
Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, outlines the conditions under which
educational institutions can take action against students accused of ragging.
This section emphasizes the necessity of a preliminary inquiry and satisfaction
of guilt before suspension orders are issued, ensuring that actions are
grounded in due process and evidence.
Conclusion
The Ankita
Kailash Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. case
underscores the importance of balancing the rights of accused individuals with
the need for a fair and smooth prosecution process. The judgment reinforces the
principle that the right to education, as part of the fundamental right to life
and personal liberty, should be protected unless there are compelling reasons
to restrict it. Additionally, the case clarifies the limits of institutional
powers in issuing suspension orders, ensuring that such actions are based on
statutory provisions and due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment