Right to reform is an essential part of right to life

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 31st March 2020

Satyam Rai v. Banaras Hindu University [Writ Petition (Civil) 25122/2019; High Court of Allahabad]

Facts:

            Satyam Rai, the petitioner had been suspended by the Banaras Hindu University from all privileges and activities associated with the University. In addition to this, he had been suspended from the hostel by an order dated 27^thDecember, 2017. The petitioner claimed his eligibility for admission to the MA History course in the university for the academic year 2019-2021. But had been denied the same on the suspension dated 27 December, 2017. 

The University had issued the order of suspension after a criminal case registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 427, 435, 341, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The suspension order provision empowered the authority to suspend a student from privileges who is involved in moral turpitude or heinous crime. 

Issue:

The question that always lingers is, why any person is barred with his/her human rights not only after proven guilty but even when a person is accused. When the guilt is yet not proved the accused must not be considered as guilty, there are enough cases to demonstrate that when the accusations are false how much it can humiliate the person, such as people accused under false terrorism protection acts and fake cases of molestations.

Judgment:

The High Court had quashed the suspension order stating that education is the most credible and effective way of restoration of self esteem and enhancement of self-worth. Denying opportunities to a student, without looking at the possibility of reform, the power to redeem one’s errors is taken away. If the student is suspended, it taken away education as a hope for a better future. Statutory regimes in universities dealing with behavior and environment are for therapeutic and reform-based system which are incompatible with the constitutional mandate to uphold human dignity. 

It had been highlighted by the court that the requirement of rehabilitative measures was missing and the administrative and legal frameworks of the universities was a serious legal and constitutional implication as it takes away the right to live with human dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was therefore held that right to reform is an essential part of right to life.

The court observed that disciplinary action needed to be supported by reformative philosophy. The reform program needed to address the causes of delinquency. It would provide a choice between punishment and reform which is not misleading. Structured Reform, self-development, and rehabilitation programs and therapeutic support, within a legal framework, will create an enabling environment in the universities under Article 21. The court affirmed that the commission of a criminal offense would not lead to an inference, that the act is one of moral turpitude. Offenses that can be categorized as those involving “moral turpitude”, will depend on the facts of each case, it said.

The Reforms and Punishment must go hand in hand, the code of Criminal Procedure itself lays down the principle of the punishment must be accompanying (a) protection of the public; (b) prevention of crime; (c) the Reformation of the offender; & (d) corporal suffering for the crime committed. Therefore, a punishment must be a balance of all the requirements and must be according to the situation, whenever there is a scope of Reform, the qualitative analysis for the betterment of the society and individual as under Right to Life must be given supreme importance.