Madras HC stays rustication of RGNIYD student expelled for anti-national graffiti — 'Jai Bhim' and 'Free Palestine' - The Statesman

Justice TV Tamilselvi observed that disallowing the student from appearing for the final semester examinations and the internship programme would result in undue hardship.

Granting interim relief to a student, the Madras High Court has stayed his rustication by the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development (RGNIYD) on the charge of putting up

anti-national graffiti — ‘Jai Bhim’ and ‘Free Palestine’ — in the hostel.

Passing interim orders on a petition by S Aslam, challenging the rustication as illegal and arbitrary, Justice TV Tamilselvi observed that disallowing the student from appearing for the

final semester examinations and the internship programme would result in undue hardship. Hence, the judge directed the RGNIYD to allow the student to appear for the examination as well as in

the placement programme of the institute.

Designated as an institute of national importance and functioning under the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the RGNIYD at Sri Perumpudur attracts students from across the

country. The petitioner, Aslam, is pursuing final year Master of Social Work (MSW). Along with Aslam, the institute had rusticated two other students, Sayeed MA and Nahal Ibnu Abullaise, on

May 25, following an inspection of the hostel rooms by the authorities, led by Assistant Registrar Avinav Thakur.

During the inspection, the Assistant Registrar, accompanied by the Warden and Assistant Warden, found the graffiti reading ‘Jai Bhim’ and ‘Free Palestine’, which was considered

‘anti-national’ in nature, leading to the expulsion of the students from the institute. Of the three who were rusticated, only Aslam had approached the court.

In his petition, Aslam submitted that the inquiry into the alleged defacement was a sham as it was held in an ‘illegal and arbitrary’ manner. Debunking the inquiry as flawed, the

petitioner’s counsel argued that the specific charges were neither communicated to the student nor was he afforded an opportunity to respond. Further, the inquiry panel had refused to

consider documentary evidence submitted by the student, he told the court, adding that the petitioner’s plea through e-mail to the institute director to permit him to appear in the

examination elicited no response.

Further, the petitioner submitted that Assistant Registrar Avinav Thakur harboured ill will towards the students since they had exposed a pending sexual assault complaint against him. Hence,

he had influenced the inquiry, it was argued.