PRAYAGRAJ — The Allahabad High Court has ordered a judicial inquiry into allegations of caste-based harassment and discriminatory grading at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, directing the investigators to protect students who give evidence.
Justice Vinod Diwakar appointed Small Causes Court Judge Archana Singh and Chief Judicial Magistrate Arun Kumar Yadava to examine claims made by a B.A. LL.B. student against a faculty member who also served as a hostel warden.
Interim protections
The court said the allegations were serious but emphasized that they had not been proved. It ordered that the academic be relieved of administrative responsibilities while the inquiry is underway and be kept away from evaluating the petitioning student or handling disciplinary and hostel matters involving either petitioner.
The inquiry must determine whether students from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes experienced caste-based humiliation or discrimination and whether the university handled complaints under the applicable rules. Its report is due in a sealed cover.
The vice chancellor must also establish an independent committee to re-evaluate the student’s answer sheets in subjects taught and marked by the faculty member. The university was directed to ensure that the student and a Ph.D. scholar who joined the petition face no academic or administrative retaliation.
Fair process on both sides
The order seeks to preserve evidence and protect students while giving the accused academic a full opportunity to be heard. The court expressly avoided making a finding of misconduct at this stage.
The case reflects a recurring judicial task in campus disputes — intervening when an internal process is alleged to have failed, without converting interim safeguards into a final determination.
Why an outside inquiry was necessary
A university ordinarily investigates complaints through its own committees. Judicial intervention becomes more likely when the alleged wrong involves a person with authority over grading, housing or discipline and the institution is accused of failing to respond. The concentration of power can discourage witnesses and make an internal process appear compromised even before any finding is made.
Appointing judicial officers creates distance from the university while retaining a fact-finding process in which the faculty member can answer the allegations. The court’s insistence on an opportunity to be heard is essential because interim protective measures must not be mistaken for a conclusion of guilt.
Academic decisions can be reviewed without the court grading papers
Courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own view for academic evaluation. An independent re-assessment is a narrower remedy. It tests whether the marks can be explained on academic grounds while leaving subject-matter judgment to qualified evaluators.
Removing the accused faculty member from the petitioner’s future assessment and hostel affairs reduces the risk of retaliation or continued influence. It also protects the university by separating the investigation from daily decisions affecting the complainants.
Confidentiality and evidence
Students may be unwilling to describe caste-based remarks if their identities could circulate among teachers and administrators. The direction to protect witnesses is therefore central, not incidental. Investigators will still need enough detail to allow a meaningful response, requiring careful handling of statements and records.
The inquiry can examine emails, complaint logs, answer scripts, moderation practices and testimony from other students. Patterns may be relevant, but the officers must distinguish firsthand evidence from rumor and avoid treating caste identity alone as proof of discriminatory intent.
What the sealed report should accomplish
A sealed submission protects sensitive student information during the initial stage, although any final judicial reliance should be consistent with procedural fairness. The court may later decide what findings must be shared with the parties and the public.
The immediate order is best understood as preservation of a fair process. It protects students, maintains the faculty member’s right to contest the claims and asks whether the university’s own safeguards functioned when they were needed.
