Allahabad High Court Orders Independent Inquiry Against HOD-Warden Over Alleged Caste-Based Humiliation At RPNLU Prayagraj
Allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination have been raised by 2 students.
The Allahabad High Court has ordered an independent inquiry against the Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys' Hostel at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj, over allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination raised by 2 students.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar also directed an independent re-evaluation of the answer sheets of one of the students and barred the concerned HOD-Warden from having any role in his evaluation, disciplinary matters or hostel-related matters concerning the petitioners.
The Court, however, made it clear that it was not recording any finding on the truth of the allegations.
"The allegations are serious, and for that very reason they require to be examined by an impartial agency after affording a full opportunity of hearing to the person against whom they are made", the Court observed.
It added that "nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion upon their correctness".
Case in brief
The petitioners, a Ph.D. research scholar and a fifth-semester B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student of the University, with the latter residing in the Boys' Hostel.
Their grievance was that respondent no. 6 (the Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys' Hostel) used academic and administrative authority as an "instrument of caste-based humiliation and retaliation".
The fifth-semester student had submitted a complaint to the Vice-Chancellor on August 20, 2026, alleging that the University had failed to act on his grievance despite repeated reminders and further complaints.
In the complaint, the student stated that Constitutional Law-II was the Gold Medal subject and that he had secured the highest marks in Constitutional Law-I. He alleged that respondent no. 6 had remarked at the beginning of the fourth semester:
"jo constitutional law me highest lekar aya hai, ab mere me lekar aaye". [The one who got the highest marks in Constitutional Law, let him get the highest marks in my subject now]
He said he understood the remark as an indirect reference to his previous academic performance.
The student further alleged that the stricter evaluation of his answer sheets was due to his caste and claimed that the concerned faculty member had publicly made insulting remarks concerning caste and reservation.
One such alleged remark quoted in the complaint was:
"Tum to achchi family se ho, tumhe reservation kyo chahiye?" [You come from a good family; why do you need reservation?]
He also referred to alleged comments concerning a faculty member appointed under the reserved category.
High Court's order
The Court noted that further allegations of caste-based remarks were contained in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 of the petition. It declined to reproduce them, observing that the matter was "yet to be inquired into".
The Bench requested Archana Singh-I, Judge, Small Cause Court, District Court, Prayagraj, and Arun Kumar Yadava, Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to the High Court.
The inquiry will ascertain whether students belonging to the SC-ST communities were subjected to caste-based humiliation or discrimination by respondent no. 6 or any other person employed in or working for gain in the University.
It will also examine whether complaints regarding such allegations were dealt with by the University in accordance with applicable regulations.
The inquiry officers may record statements of the petitioners and other persons, including respondent no. 6, and call for University records.
Before recording any adverse conclusion against anyone, the officers must put the substance of the allegations to that person and provide a reasonable opportunity of explanation.
The High Court separately directed the Vice-Chancellor to constitute an independent committee to re-evaluate the student's answer sheets for subjects taught and evaluated by respondent no. 6 in the fifth semester, as well as any other subjects indicated by the student.
No member of the committee may be someone who originally evaluated the answer sheets, and respondent no. 6 shall have "no role, direct or indirect" in its constitution or functioning.
The answer sheets must be placed before the committee after masking the identities of the candidate and original evaluator, and the committee will not be informed of the marks originally awarded. The exercise must be completed within 1 week.
The Court directed the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that neither petitioner suffers any adverse academic or administrative consequences as a result of the proceedings or statements made during the inquiry.
Until further orders, respondent no. 6 shall not be assigned any role in evaluating petitioner no. 2's answer scripts or in any disciplinary or hostel-related matter concerning either petitioner.
The Court further directed:
"The Respondent no.6 shall be relieved henceforth from all administrative responsibilities till the completion of the enquiries".
The Vice-Chancellor has also been directed to disclose whether the University has constituted an Equal Opportunity Cell and a committee for the redressal of grievances of SC/ST students under the applicable UGC Regulations, along with details of their composition and the action taken on the student's complaint.
The proceedings and identities of persons deposing before the inquiry are to be kept confidential. The matter will next be heard on September 24, 2026 at 12 PM.
Advocate Shivam Agarwal appeared for the petitioners
Advocate Gaurav Tripathi appeared for respondents nos. 2 & 3.
Case title - Shubhendu Anand And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others