VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITYversusCRAIG MCLEOD

                         [2012] 7 S.C.R. 270


A     VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY
                                   v.
                          CRAIG MCLEOD
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5889 of 2012 )

                          AUGUST 16, 2012
8
          [A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]

         CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:

c         Art. 136 - Interference with interim order passed by High
     Court staying operation of orders of the University against a
    student charged with beating and threatening a teacher - Held:
     There is a self-imposed limited discretion for interference
    available to Supreme Court, and it would, generally, be more
0   appropriate for an aggrieved litigant to approach the High
     Court for rectifying any error that may have been committed
    in passing (or declining to pass) an interim order - Of course,
    in an emergent and appropriate situation it is always open to
     a litigant to approach Supreme Court in its remedial
    jurisdiction - In the instant case, there· was no legal basis for
E   interdicting completion of inquiry against the student - While
     the High Court may have intended to bring a quietus to the
     entire episode, it should have kept in mind that maintenance
     of discipline in the University is equally important for a
    conducive academic environment and that the larger interests
F    of the academic community are more central than the
    individual interests of a student - In the circumstances, the
     impugned interim order is set aside - Liberty granted to the
    student to revive his writ petition which he filed (and
     subsequently withdrawn) challenging the order of the
G    University by which he was rusticated from the University -
     Interim orders - Education/Educational Institutions -
     Maintaining of discipline on campus.

         An FIR was lodged against the respondent, a student
H                                 270
VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY 271
             v. CRAIG MCLEOD
of B.E. (Computer Science and Engineer) of the                   A
appellant-University for beating and threatening a teacher
on campus. The University also initiated action against
the respondent and pending final decision, by an order
dated 2.2.2010, suspended him from attending his
classes and restrained him from entering the University          B
premises. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, the
High Court, by the interim order dated 9.8.2010, stayed
the directions passed by the University. The University
challenged the said interim order in the instant appeal.
Subsequently, by order 7.1.2011, the University                  c
rusticated the respondent from the University for a period
of five years. The respondent challenged the said order
in W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2012, which was withdrawn by him
with liberty to move an appropriate application in the
Supreme Court in the instant appeal. However, no such
                                                                 0
application was filed.

    Disposing of the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. It is only in an atypical case that this Court
entertains a petition against a discretionary interim order      E
passed by the High Court where repercussions are grave
or the legal ba~is for passing the interim order are
obscure; or there is a miscarriage of justice; or it is
imperative that this Court exercises its corrective
jurisdiction. [para 16) [277-A-C]                                F

     Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Madras
Refineries Ltd., (1998) 9 SCC 209; Maharashtra SEB v.
Vaman, (1999) 3 SCC 132, and United Bank of India v.
Satyavvati Tandon 2010 (9) SCR 1 = (2010) 8 SCC 110;
Union of India v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.Ltd. 1979 (1) SCR     G
735 =   (1978) 4 SCC 295; Joginder Nath Gupta v. Satish
Chander Gupta (1983) 2 SCC 325; Kishor Kirlilal Mehta and
Ors. v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, 2007 (8) SCR 86
= (2007) 1o sec 21 - relied on
                                                                 H
    272       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A       1.2 There is, therefore, a self-imposed limited
  discretion for interference available to this Court, and it
  would, generally, be more appropriate for an aggrieved
  litigant to approach the High Court for rectifying any error
  that may have been committed in passing (or declining
  to pass) an interim order. Of course, in an emergent and
8
  appropriate situation it is always open to a litigant to
  approach this Court in its remedial jurisdiction. [para 17]
  [277-D-E]

       1.3 Insofar as the instant case is concerned, the
C respondent was alleged to have assaulted a professor
  on campus. This by itself is a rather serious allegation.
  The turn of events, given the lapse of time, did not form
  a legal basis for interdicting completion of the inquiry
  against the respondent. While the High Court may have
D intended to bring a quietus to the entire episode, it should
  have kept in mind that maintenance of discipline in the
  University is equally important for a conducive academic
  environment and that the larger interests of the academic
  community are·more central than the individual interests
E of a student. In the circumstances, the impugned interim
  order is set aside. [para 18-19, 23) [277-F-H; 278-A-B, HJ

         Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Another v.
    Rajkishore Tripathi (Dr.), 1977 (2) SCR 213 = (1977) 1 SCC
    279 - relied on
F
       1.4 In view of the subsequent developments,
  particularly, the passing of the office order dated
  07.01.2011 by the Vice Chancellor of the University,
  liberty is granted to the respondent to revive W.P.(C) No.
G 890 of 2012 filed (and subsequently withdrawn) by him
  in the High Court challenging the order dated 07.01.2011.
  [para 21-22] [278-D-F]
                        Case Law Reference:
H         (1998) 9 sec 209      relied on           para 16
VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY 273
             v. CRAIG MCLEOD
     (1999) 3 sec 132             relied on               para 16        A

     2010 (9) SCR 1               relied on               para 16
     1979 (1) SCR 735             relied on               para 16
     (1983) 2 sec 325             relied on               para 16        B
     2007 (8) SCR 86              relied on               para 16

     1977 (2) SCR 213             relied on               para 19
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5889 of 2012.                                                            C

    From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2010 of the High
Court of Chatisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P. (C) No. 694 of 2010.

     Rakesh Khanna, S.S. Nehra, K.K Mishra, Seema Rao for
the Appellant.                                                           D
   Ajit Kumar Sinha, Ashwarya Sinha, Abhishek Prasad,
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the Respondent.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                         E
     MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
    2. The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University is
aggrieved by an interim order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P.(C) No. 694 of
2010 filed by Craig Mcleod.                                              F

     3. The subject matter of the impugned interim order, is
three directions given by the University on 02.02.2010. These
three directions are: (1) suspending Craig Mcleod from
attending classes in the University of which he is a student, (2)        G
stopping him from availing the facilities of the University till final
orders are passed in respect of his alleged gross misbehavior,
and (3) restraining from entering the University premises.
     4. All three directions were stayed by the High Court by
the impugned interim order till the disposal of the Writ Petition.       H
    274       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   The interim stay was subject to the condition that Craig Mcleod
    gives an undertaking, inter alia, of good behaviour. The
    impugned interim order also directed the University not to pass
    a final order in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour of
    Craig Mcleod.
B       5. In our opinion the impugned interim order is not
    sustainable and while passing final orders, we have taken
    subsequent developments into consideration.

    The facts:
c      6. It is alleged that on 02.02.2010 Craig Mcleod grossly
  misbehaved on campus with two Professors of the University.
  As a result of the incident, a First Information Report was lodged
  with the police and the Proctorial Board of the University took
  an emergent decision to expel him from the University for
D violating the code of conduct and for beating and threatening
  a teacher. Pending a final decision on the allegations against
  him, Craig Mcleod was suspended from attending his classes,
  stopped from availing facilities of the University and restrained
  from entering the University premises by an order dated
E 02.02.2010.

    Proceedings in the High Court:
        7. Feeling aggrieved, Craig Mcleod challenged the said
  order by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 694 of 2010 in the High
F Court of Chhattisgarh. On 17.02.2010 notice was issued in the
  Writ Petition and in the interim, the passing of an order of
  rustication was stayed. This interim order was continued for a
  couple of months.

G       8. On 17.06.2010, the High Court granted liberty to the
    University to take a final decision in the matter of the alleged
    gross misbehaviour of Craig Mcleod within a week. In other
    words, the interim order was not extended.

       9. Soon thereafter, some developments appear to have
H taken place but they are not clear from the record before us.
VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY 275
    v. CRAIG MCLEOD [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Be that as it may, on 22.07.2010 the High Court recorded that        A
Craig Mcleod had filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2010 in the
High Court tendering an unconditional C!POlogy to the teacher
concerned for the incident, which he stated was unintentional.
The order passed by the High Court also recorded that Craig
Mcleod stated that he would go to the University on 26.07.2010       8
and personally tender an apology to the concerned teachers.
The case was then adjourned to 06.08.2010.
     10. When the matter was taken up on 06.08.2010, the High
Court was informed by the University and the concerned
Professors that Craig Mcleod did come to the University to           C
tender an apology but he was accompanied by several persons.
It appears that an apology was not tendered by him and in any
event the apology, if tendered, was not sincere in view of the
above situation. This was, of course, contested by Craig
Mcleod.                                                              D
    11 Based, however, on the affidavit of apology dated
21.07.2010, the impugned interim order dated 09.08.2010
came to be passed by the High Court.
Proceedings in         this    Court     and    pendent       lite   E
developments:
    12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned interim order dated
09.08.2010 the University preferred a Petition for Special
Leave to appeal (now a Civil Appeal). On 29.11.2010, this
Court passed the following order :                                   F
    "Issue Notice.
   · Interim stay of the impugned order of the High Court to the
     extent it stays the passing of the final order in the
     disciplinary enquiry against the respondent. Consequently,      G
     the Enquiry Authority may submit his report, subject to final
     decision."
    13. When we took up the matter for final disposal, learned
counsel for the parties brought to our notice certain
developments that had taken place during the pendency of this        H
    276       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   appeal. Firstly, on 07.01.2011 an office order was passed by
    the Vice Chancellor of the University rusticating Craig Mcleod
    from the University for a period of 5 years. It was also ordered
    that he was not entitled to get admission in any course in the
    University or any affiliated college of University during this
8   period of 5 years. The operative portion of the order passed
    by the Vice Chancellor reads as follows:-
          "The Shri Craig Mcleod S/o Shri Rodney Mcleod, a student
          of B. E. (Computer Science and Engineering) is hereby
          rusticated from the University for a period of 5 years w.e.f.
C         today and further he will not be entitled to get admission
          in any course in the University or any affiliated college of
          the University during this period of 5 years."
         14. Thereafter, Craig Mcleod challenged the order dated
  07.01.2011 by filing W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2012 in the High Court
D of Chhattisgarh. This Writ Petition came up for hearing on
  10.05.2012 when it was withdrawn by him with liberty to move
  an appropriate application in this Court since this appeal was
  still pending. The order passed by the High Court on 10.05.2010
  reads as follows:-
E
         "ln view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
         on 29/11/2010 in SLP(C) No. 32358/2010 arising out of
         an interim order passed by this court on 09/08/2010 in
         W.P. (C) No. 694/2010, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
         Court directed that "the Enquiry Authority may submit his
F        report, subject to final decision", learned counsel for the
         petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the
         Writ Petition with liberty to move appropriate application
         before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
                Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
G
          withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid."
         15. We may note that despite liberty having been granted
    to him, Craig Mcleod has not filed any application in this Court.
    We have, however, heard learned counsel for the parties.
H
VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY 277
    v. CRAIG MCLEOD [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

Discussion:                                                           A
      16. It is only in an atypical case that this Court entertains
a petition against a discretionary 1nterim order passed by the
High Court (Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. v.
Madras Refineries Ltd., (1998) 9 SCC 209, Maharashtra SEB             B
v. Vaman, (1999) 3 SCC 132, and United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110) where, for example, the
repercussions are grave or the legal basis for passing the
interim order are obscure (Union of India v. Swadeshi Cotton
Mills Co.Ltd., (1978) 4 SCC 295); or there is a miscarriage of
justice (Joginder Nath Gupta v. Satish Chander Gupta, (1983)          C
2 SCC 325); or it is imperative that this Court exercises its
corrective jurisdiction (Kishor Kirlilal Mehta and Ors. v. Lilavati
Kirlilal Mehta Medical Trust, (2007) 10 SCC 21 ).

      17. There is, therefore, a self-imposed limited discretion      D
for interference available to this Court, and it would, generally,
be more appropriate for an aggrieved litigant to approach the
High Court for rectifying any error that may have been
committed in passing (or declining to pass) an interim order.
Of course, in an emergent and appropriate situation it is always
                                                                      E
open to a litigant to approach this Court in its remedial
jurisdiction.

      18. Insofar as the present case is concerned, Craig Mcleod
was alleged to have assaulted a professor on campus. This by
itself is a rather serious allegation. While appreciating this, the   F
High Court had, on 7.6.2010, permitted the University to take
a final decision in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour
of Craig Mcleod. About two months later, the High Court
completely changed its view apparently because in the
meantime Craig Mcleod had tendered an apology to the High             G
Court (which was not necessary) and then tendered or offered
to tender an apology to the concerned Professor, which he did
not accept since it was not sincere.

     19. The turn of events, given the lapse of time, did not form
a legal basis for interdicting completion of the inquiry against      H
    278       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Craig Mcleod. While the High Court may have intended to bring
  a quietus to the entire episode, it should have kept in mind that
  maintenance of discipline in the University is equally important
  for a conducive academic environment and that the larger
  interests of the academic community are more central than the
B individual interests of a student. In Varanaseya Sanskrit
    Vishwavidyalaya and Another v. Rajkishore Tripathi (Dr.),
    (1977) 1 sec 279 it was observed that in matters of discipline
    or administration of the internal aff~irs of a University, the courts
    should be most reluctant to interfere.
c        20. It is under these circumstances that we have
    entertained this appeal against an interim order.
    Conclusion:
        21. Now, several significant developments have taken
D place overtaking the 'cause of action' for approaching this
  Court, particularly the passing of the office order dated
  07 .01.2011 by Vice Chancellor of the University. In our opinion,
  it is not necessary or even appropriate at this stage to judge
  the validity of the office order dated 07.01.2011. We may only
E mention that learned counsel for Craig Mcleod submitted that
  the order dated 07.01.2011 is in violation of the order passed
  by this Court on 29.11.2010.
        22. Therefore, without going into the larger issues raised
F before us, we grant liberty to Craig Mcleod to revive W.P.(C)
  No. 890 of 2012 filed (and subsequently withdrawn) by him in
  the High Court challenging the office order dated 07.01.2011
  passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. We expect the
  High Court to permit revival of the Writ Petition and decide it
G expeditiously since it is stated that Craig Mcleod has already
  lost two years of his education as result of this litigation.
         23. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order
    is set aside and this appeal is accordingly disposed of.

H R.P.                                           Appeal disposed of.