The Allahabad High Court has questioned the Single Judge's order directing an inquiry by Judicial Officers into allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj, observing that the University's Equal Opportunity Cell should, prima facie, have been allowed to examine the allegations.

A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh, hearing a Special Appeal against the earlier order, has stayed further proceedings in the writ petition until the next listing of the appeal.

The matter concerns the allegations raised by two students, a Ph.D. research scholar and a fifth-semester B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student of the University, against the Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys' Hostel (respondent no. 6).

Their grievance was that respondent no. 6 used academic and administrative authority as an “instrument of caste-based humiliation and retaliation”.

The 5th-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 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]

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?]

The student also referred to alleged comments concerning a faculty member appointed under the reserved category.

In its earlier order, the High Court had made it clear that it was not recording any finding on the truth of the allegations, observing:

"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".

It had added that "nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion upon their correctness".

The Single Judge had 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 was to 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.

Division Bench's order

The present Special Appeal was filed against the earlier order. Before the Division Bench, it was pointed out that the University already had an Equal Opportunity Cell and that the students themselves had sought an inquiry through that mechanism, after excluding the concerned respondent from the process.

The appellant argued that, in these circumstances, the inquiry ought to have been conducted through the University's institutional mechanism rather than by Judicial Officers.

The University, on the other hand, submitted that during the writ proceedings it had agreed to the formation of the committee proposed by the Court to ensure fairness and transparency.

Counsel for the students also submitted that although they had initially sought an inquiry under the Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, they did not oppose the inquiry by Judicial Officers after the University had agreed to the Court's proposal.

The Division Bench, after considering the submissions, observed that when an Equal Opportunity Cell was available in the University, and the students themselves had sought an inquiry through that Cell,er excluding the concerned respondent, there was prima facie no occasion for the inquiry to be conducted by Judicial Officers.

The Court observed thus:

"Even if the allegations are of a serious nature, the power of the University to examine such allegations through an appropriately constituted Equal Opportunity Cell ought not to have been taken away, as it is within the domain of the University to look into the welfare of the students and deal with situations as they arise".

The Bench noted that the report of the Judicial Officers' inquiry was scheduled to be submitted on September 24. It directed that the Special Appeal be placed as a fresh case before the appropriate Court on September 29.

The Court further directed that, if the inquiry report had already been prepared, it should be placed before the Court in a sealed cover for consideration on the next date.

The Division Bench thereafter directed that the "further proceeding in Writ C No. 37012 of 2026 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing of the Special Appeal".

The appellant also sought a stay of the directions contained in paragraph 17 of the earlier order.

The Bench observed that, at this stage, it had examined only the scope of the inquiry and the applicable regulations, and that the request concerning the other directions could be considered on the next date.

The Special Appeal has accordingly been listed as a fresh case on September 29.

Case title - Dr. Deepak Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order