ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 08-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
1007
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1007
ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 660-662 of 2020)
OCTOBER 08, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 – s.6(1) –
Appellants after completing MBBS course were pursuing PG Degree
Course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and were also
working as residents in a Hospital attached to their College – A
student, a year junior to the appellants, resident in the same
Department and pursuing the same course committed suicide – FIR
registered against the appellants – Appellants suspended by the
Dean of the Hospital and the College – Bail granted to the appellants
by High Court with certain conditions – While some conditions were
later relaxed/recalled, condition no.(iv) on the appellants to not
enter their College and the Hospital was maintained – On appeal,
held: To take appropriate action u/s.6(1), the concerned head of
the educational institution must prima facie be satisfied that the
allegations against the student have been found to be true,
whereafter, an order of suspension can be passed – In the present
case, the order of suspension does not even record any such finding
or prima facie view – It was not passed by virtue of power entrusted
u/s.6(1) but was on the ground that there was an FIR against the
appellants – Thus, order of suspension is not referable to s.6(1) –
Further, apart from s.6(1), no other statutory provision has been
referred to or relied upon – On balancing the competing claims, the
condition is relaxed and the appellants are permitted to go back to
the College and the Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to the
conditions as stated, otherwise the pendency of prosecution against
them will add further penalty in the form of prejudicing their career
– Any such adverse impact will negate their rights u/Art.21 – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.174 and 164 – Penal Code, 1860
– s.306 r/w s.34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 – Maharashtra Medical
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
Council Act, 1965 – s.22(1) – Medical Council of India Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Medical Council
of India (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/
Institutions) Regulations, 2009 – Paras 7, 8 – Constitution of India
– Art.21.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notice was issued to see if going back to the
College would not be feasible, whether the Appellants could be
allowed migration to any other college/institution so that both
the elements viz. (i) relating to the career and prospects of the
Appellants and (ii) the interest of the prosecution in keeping the
witnesses away from the possibility of influence by the Appellants;
would get satisfied and taken care of. The matter has travelled
far from what was noted and noticed in the beginning and now the
respondents have placed the Order of Suspension of the
Appellants on record and insist that so long as the Order of
Suspension is in operation, the Appellants cannot be allowed to
go back to their course of study. [Para 23][1029-G; 1030-B]
1.2 It must be noted:-
a) The Appellants are three lady doctors who are pursuing
Post Graduate medical course (M.D.) in Gynaecology and
Obstetrics in Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai and
have completed two years out of three years’ of course. The
course is well coveted and considered to be a specialty course in
that field. The Appellants do not appear to be original residents
of Mumbai and, as such, it cannot be said that they or their families
have deep-rooted presence in Mumbai.
b) As noticed by this Court in Sumit Mehta, if the law
presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved, the
Appellants as presumably innocent persons, are entitled to all
the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and are entitled to pursue
their course of study so long as exercise of said right does not
hamper smooth conduct and progress of the prosecution.
c) The stand taken by the State through the affidavit filed
by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
Department, Government of Maharashtra, is that the Appellants
can prosecute their Post Graduate course in future after conclusion
of the trial. Said submission and the observation by the High Court
in para 11

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.