VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY versus CRAIG MCLEOD

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 16-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 270 
VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY 
v. 
CRAIG MCLEOD 
(Civil Appeal No. 5889 of 2012 ) 
AUGUST 16, 2012 
[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subsequently withdrawn) challenging the order of the 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) 1 o 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 
8 to pass) an interim order. Of course, in an emergent and 
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 

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