In a democratic society built on the pillars of equality and justice, the struggles of marginalized individuals seeking redressal against systemic oppression must ignite collective introspection. The recent judgments concerning Shubham Kumar, a Scheduled Caste student of National Institute of Technology (NIT) Patna, underscore both the triumphs and failures of our judicial system in protecting the rights of marginalized citizens.

Vindication in the Patna High Court

The judgment in LPA 1339 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court represents a landmark in upholding the principles of fairness and justice. Shubham Kumar, an exemplary student known for his academic brilliance and laurels such as qualifying GATE 2024 and presenting research at national conferences, found himself at the mercy of vindictive institutional authorities. Accused of baseless misconduct, Kumar’s expulsion became a glaring example of how institutions can abuse power to suppress dissent and shield corrupt practices.

The High Court’s judgment was unequivocal in exposing the arbitrary and malicious nature of the disciplinary proceedings:

• Procedural Violations: The court noted that no proper show-cause notice was issued, and the inquiry lacked transparency. The allegations against Kumar were unsubstantiated, revealing gross procedural lapses.
• Coerced Apology and Retaliation: The student was coerced into tendering an apology under duress. The court emphasized that such coerced admissions hold no legal or moral value, particularly when a power imbalance exists.
• Vindictive Motives: Shubham’s legitimate complaints about corruption and mismanagement, including financial irregularities and violations of anti-ragging guidelines, triggered retaliatory actions by institutional authorities.

Recognizing the systemic failures, the Hon’ble Court set aside the expulsion, restored Kumar’s academic position, and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on NIT Patna for the mental anguish caused. This judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in defending individuals against institutional vendettas.

Supreme Court’s Role: A Concerning Contrast

While the Patna High Court’s ruling exemplified judicial fairness, the proceedings in the Supreme Court concerning National Institute of Technology Patna’s Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 19944 of 2024) arising out of LPA 1339 of 2023 Patna High Court, raise serious concerns about procedural fairness and impartiality. Kumar’s plea for reassignment to an alternate bench stems from a perception of bias in the Hon’ble Bench’s handling of the case. The Supreme Court’s actions—from issuing a stay on his academic progression to disregarding crucial evidence—have undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to protect the rights of marginalised individuals.

The Hon’ble Bench’s conduct in this case has been marked by several troubling aspects:

• Stay Orders Without Merit: By staying the High Court’s order for academic reinstatement, the Supreme Court has effectively jeopardized Kumar’s future while allowing NIT Patna to continue its oppressive tactics.
• Disregard for Evidence: Applications seeking to present critical electronic evidence of institutional misconduct remain unaddressed, leaving vital aspects of the case unresolved.
• Coercion and Procedural Inefficiency: Repeated demands for apologies and delays in addressing urgent applications suggest a lack of judicial sensitivity to the student’s precarious situation.

Broader Implications for Marginalized Students

Shubham Kumar’s ordeal is not an isolated case but a microcosm of the systemic challenges faced by marginalized communities in India’s premier institutions. Regulatory failures compound the issue. Bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) have failed to act on documented grievances, ranging from financial scams to caste-based discrimination.

Institutions like NIT Patna, funded by public money, must be held to higher standards of transparency and inclusivity. The judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21A becomes even more critical in such scenarios.

The Way Forward

The contrasting judgments in Shubham Kumar’s case underline the urgent need for reforms in India’s legal and educational systems:

1. Judicial Accountability: The Supreme Court must reassess its approach to ensure impartiality and procedural fairness, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. Judicial oversight mechanisms could enhance accountability.
2. Institutional Reforms: Educational institutions must implement robust grievance redressal mechanisms, enforce anti-discrimination measures, and adhere to UGC guidelines. Transparency in disciplinary proceedings is non-negotiable.
3. Regulatory Vigilance: Bodies like the CVC and UGC must enforce compliance and act swiftly on complaints. Whistleblowers must be protected, not persecuted.
4. Public Engagement: Cases like Shubham Kumar’s highlight the importance of public discourse in demanding justice. Civil society must hold institutions and the judiciary accountable.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s judgment in LPA 1339 of 2023 offers a glimmer of hope in an otherwise bleak narrative. It serves as a reminder that justice can prevail when courts act as impartial guardians of the law. However, the Supreme Court’s actions in the SLP cast a shadow on this optimism, underscoring the need for greater vigilance in upholding the principles of justice and equality.

Shubham Kumar’s fight is a clarion call for systemic change. As a society, we must ensure that the ideals enshrined in our Constitution are not mere words but living principles that protect the most vulnerable among us. Only then can we claim to be a truly just and equitable democracy.