The Delhi High Court has held that judicial interference in an administrative decision is “called for when the decision is an outcome of an unfair procedure.” The court made the observation while setting aside a 2018 show-cause notice issued to an MA student by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the subsequent fine imposed on her for alleged “misconduct and indiscipline”. The student, Aditi Chatterjee, had participated in “democratic and peaceful protests” against intrusive hostel raids by the university authorities led by the associate dean of students. In an order pronounced on April 23, which was made public recently, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said that “the principle of audi alteram partem (listen to the other side) has not been adhered to” in the matter involving Chatterjee, which “had the effect of denying her a reasonable opportunity to prepare her defence and assailing the charges which had been levelled against her.” In October 2017, Chatterjee was informed of a complaint against her for being involved in physical assault, manhandling and verbal abuse against the associate dean of students and a student. However, a copy of the complaint was not shared with her at the time. Later, she was shown a copy of the complaint and asked to respond immediately, but was not allowed to retain the copy. According to Chatterjee, no other evidence or relevant documents were provided to her, nor was she given an opportunity to cross-examine or question any witness or evidence that the authorities relied on. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued, which she responded to, highlighting the violation of principles of natural justice, but an office order followed, imposing a fine of Rs 6,000 on her. Chatterjee, through her advocate Soutik Banerjee, had moved the Delhi High Court in 2018, challenging the show-cause notice issued by the varsity in April 2018 followed by an office order in May 2018, with the latter implicating Chatterjee of being involved in an act of indiscipline and misconduct. Reiterating that different facets of “due opportunity” as part of the principle of natural justice entails “a clear and proper notice, disclosure of the evidence brought against the accused person, and being given reasonable time to prepare their defence,” Justice Ohri held that it “in essence, enforces the fundamental right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” “When it comes to judicial review of administrative actions, the Court does not sit in appeal and cannot replace the decision of the administrative authorities by its own decision. Interference in an administrative decision is called for when the decision is an outcome of an unfair procedure. Some of the grounds mandating judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety,” the judge reasoned. “The notice not being accompanied by a copy of the complaint, petitioner not being provided with the Chief Security Office report or the statements of security personnel had the effect of denying her a reasonable opportunity to prepare her defence… The petitioner was allowed to see the complaint for the first time on 07.11.2017 when she appeared before Chief Proctor, which again highlights the unfairness of the procedure adopted by the Respondents (JNU),” the court noted while setting aside the varsity’s action against Chatterjee.
