APHC010018742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 1019/2025 Between: 1. S PRANAVA KRISHNA, W/O. KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.4-39A, VANKIREDDI GARI PALLI, YARRAVARIPALEM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SRI PADMAVATHI MAHILA VISVAVIDHYALAYAM, (WOMENS UNIVERSITY), TIRUPATI, REP. BY REGISTRAR. 3. CONTROLER OF EXAMINATIONS, SRI PADMAVATHI MAHILA VISVAVIDHYALAYAM, WOMENS UNIVERSITY), TIRUPATI. 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SRI PADMAVATHI MAHILA VISVAVIDHYALAYAM,(WOMENS UNIVERSITY), TIRUPATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing Orders vide D.O.Lr.No.SPMW/RP/2024, dt.03.01.2025 and not permitting the petitioner to pursue B.A.LL.B course as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to pursue her B.A.LL.B course by setting aside the orders of the 2nd respondent in D.O.Lr.No.SPMW/RP/2024, dt.03.01.2025 and pass such SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to pursue her B.A.LL.B course by suspending the orders of the 2nd respondent in D.O.Lr.No.SPMW/RP/2024. dt.03.01.2025 pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANIKYA VEENA M (SC FOR PADMAVATHI MAHILA UNIVERSITY) 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 3 O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of 2nd respondent in passing Orders vide D.O.Lr.No.SPMVV/RP/2024, dated 03.01.2025 and not permitting the petitioner to pursue B.A., LL.B., course, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently prays the Court to set-aside the said order and direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to pursue her B.A., LL.B., course. 2. Contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that, the petitioner joined in Five (05) Year Integrated Law Course – B.A., LL.B., in the year 2021 and she was in 8th Semester and as per the Notification, dated 24.12.2024, issued by 3rd respondent, exams for 8th Semester would commence from 02.01.2025; that the petitioner appeared for all six Semester examinations conducted by the University and passed with First Class marks. (b) That a case in Crime No.254 of 2024, dated 25.07.2024 was alleged to have been falsely registered as against the petitioner, and pursuant to registration of said crime, 2nd respondent issued Proceedings, dated 26.07.2024, temporarily suspending the petitioner to pursue the course from 26.07.2024 and she was not allowed to attend the classes; that the petitioner paid the Semester and examination fee for 8th Semester; that the SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 4 petitioner made a representation on 21.12.2024 requesting 2nd and 3rd respondents to revoke the suspension proceedings but, no action was taken; that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.31320 of 2024 before this Court and this Court passed an Order, dated 02.01.2025 directing 4th respondent to examine the representation, dated 21.12.2024 within a period of one week; that 2nd respondent passed Order in D.O.Lr.No.SPMVV/RP/2024, dated 03.01.2025 stating that the accusation against the petitioner was serious in nature and it destroyed the reputation of the University and it was further stated that suspension taken against petitioner was temporary in nature and subject to final judgment of the Court and as such, they are unable to revoke the suspension order till finalization of the criminal case. (c) That the petitioner was one of the meritorious students in Five Year B.A., LL.B., course and also participated in several Seminars and events on behalf of the University, conducted by different Universities all over India. That prior to her suspension, no prior notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation and no enquiry was also conducted by the respondent-authorities; that police had not conducted any investigation till date and no charge sheet was filed and that, if police come to the conclusion that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and files final report, SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 5 the petitioner would lose her valuable Academic tenure, which cannot be compensated. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The Registrar of respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the contents of the Writ Petition, inter alia contending that the alleged behavior of petitioner ended in issuing warnings and in spite of repeated warnings, there was no change in the behaviour of the petitioner; that when the classmate of the victim girl questioned the petitioner about taking the victim girl frequently to her house, the petitioner thrashed the gates and attacked the then Security Officer on 13.07.2023 at 8.30 p.m; that the petitioner accepted the indisciplined behaviour and submitted an unconditional Undertaking, seeking apology for her unruly behaviour in the University premises and assured that she would not repeat the same in future, and she undertook that if such things happen again, the petitioner may be expelled from the University. (b) That on 19.07.2023, the petitioner submitted another Unconditional Undertaking on the same incident stating that if such acts are repeated by the petitioner, the University can punish her; that the petitioner is aged about 30 years at the time of joining 5 year integrated Law Course; that because of age disparity between the petitioner and other students, the petitioner started influencing her classmates. That even after fair chances provided to the SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 6 petitioner to correct her behaviour, the petitioner, again on 23.07.2024 entered into the room of the victim girl in Sravanthi hostel Block and beat the victim girl indiscriminately in front of her roommates by using filthy language and took the gold ornaments; that the Statutory Body which governs the Universities in India is the UGC and according to Section 10 (2) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Woman and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, as the petitioner was a student, and the charge against the petitioner is under Section 376 (1) of IPC. (c) That the petitioner approached the authorities only on 21.12.2024 after release on bail with a representation to revoke her suspension and let her in the college, but the University gave reply stating that the charges framed against the petitioner are under Sections 342, 376 (1), 292, 323, 506, 379 read with 34 IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 (for brevity ‘the Act, 2000-2008’), which are serious in nature. That the issue was widely spread in the print and electronic media and student organizations also demanded for suspension of the petitioner and also the Women Commission took the issue seriously and temporarily prevented the petitioner from entering into the campus, as the victim girl and the petitioner both are SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 7 students of the respondent University and the petitioner intentionally disobeyed the Undertaking which was given before the Dean, Students Affairs Committee on 15.07.2023 and 19.07.2023; that at the first instance, the respondent-University gave opportunity to correct her indiscipline behaviour but again, she committed a mistake and attacked the victim on 23.07.2024 in the respondent-University Hostel itself. (d) That the incident created anxiety, fear among the parents, students and the faculty in the campus and the parents started enquiring the faculty, personnel of the hostel, which created chaos in the campus and it resulted in deterioration of the reputation of the Women’s University; that by virtue of the incident, the University’s name is defamed and it resulted in decrease of admission of women students in the University in all courses in general and in the Law course, in particular; that when FIR was produced before the authorities, the University issued orders for temporary suspension under the law enacted by the regulatory bodies. (e) That the petitioner intentionally misled the Court by concealing the enquiry conducted by the Dean, students Affairs Committee about the petitioner’s indiscipline behaviour and also petitioner disobeyed the Undertaking given before the Dean, SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 8 Students Affairs Committee on 15.07.2023 and 19.07.2023 and non-disclosure of the incident that took place on 23.07.2024 and that the filing of FIR is not the first issue to suspend the petitioner temporarily; that the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 25.07.2024 and after receipt of copy of FIR on 26.07.2024 by the respondents, they constituted a Committee to enquire into the incident and the petitioner was temporarily suspended keeping in view of interest of women students in general; that the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on 26.07.2024 and as such, the respondents were unable to hold an inquiry. It is the Court to decide as to whether the petitioner is innocent or not. (f) The temporary suspension was based on criminal charges under IPC mentioned in the FIR and UGC Regulations titled UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. C.E.S.C. Ltd.1 and J.R.vohra v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. and another2 opined that when a statute confers a right which is in conformity with the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be 1 (2002) 8 SCC 715. 2 1985 SCR (2) 899. SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 9 negatived by the Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner filed reply-affidavit to the counter- affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, denying the allegations leveled against her. It is contended by the petitioner that she went to the room of the victim girl and questioned her about her intimacy with the petitioner’s husband and asked her to maintain distance with her husband and on that issue, a quarrel occurred between them; that the petitioner gave report to police on 25.07.2024, but the police did not register the crime against the alleged victim girl; that the petitioner was pressurized to sign the said Undertaking, dated 15.07.2023. (b) It is further stated that as per the report, the alleged incident occurred on 23.07.2024 and complaint was given by the alleged victim girl on 23.07.2024, and enquiry report was submitted on 24.07.2024; that in fact, no complaint was made on 23.07.2024 and no enquiry was conducted as contended; that only after filing the Writ Petition, the alleged complaint, dated 23.07.2024 and enquiry report, dated 24.07.2024 were created for filing the counter-affidavit; that copy of the complaint was not given to the petitioner to file her reply to the complaint and no opportunity was given to her. SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 10 (c) The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 16.10.2024 and subsequently, she approached the respondent authorities several times and requested them to permit her to attend the classes; that the petitioner was suffering from PCOD and acute back pain; that the petitioner made representation on 21.12.2024 requesting the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension and permit her to continue her studies. 5. Respondent No.2 filed additional counter-affidavit reiterating the allegations stated in the counter-affidavit and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for University representing respondent No.2. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. A perusal of the contents of the report basing on which, a case in Crime No.254 of 2024 of Tirupati Rural Police Station was registered against the petitioner and her husband, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 (1), 292, 323, 506 and 379 read with 34 IPC and Section 66E of the Act, 2000-2008, goes to show that the victim woman was pursuing Five (05) Year Integrated Law Course – B.A., LL.B., along with the petitioner. That in the month of June, 2023, the petitioner was alleged to have taken the victim woman to her house and introduced her husband SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 11 to the victim woman. It was further alleged that both the petitioner and her husband were alleged to have made the victim woman to smoke ganja and when she became dizzy, husband of the petitioner, who was accused No.2 in the aforesaid crime, was alleged to have committed rape over the victim woman. Besides the above specific accusation against the petitioner and her husband, the victim woman made specific accusations, which made the police to register the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 292, 323, 506 and 379 read with 34 IPC and Section 66E of the Act, 2000-2008. Apparently, the alleged date of occurrence of the offence was on 28.12.2023 and the victim woman gave report to the police on 25.07.2024. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent would contend that the petitioner was warned on several occasions due to her indisciplined behaviour in the University premises but, there was no change in her attitude and even after fair chance was provided to the petitioner to correct her behaviour, the petitioner, again on 23.07.2024 entered into the room of the victim girl in Sravanthi Hostel Block and beat the victim woman indiscriminately in front of her roommates by using filthy language and took the gold ornaments. It is his further submission that respondent No.2- University constituted a Committee to enquire into the incident and SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 12 the petitioner was temporarily suspended keeping in view of interest of women students in general and that the acts of the petitioner resulted in deterioration of the reputation of the Women’s University and resulted in decrease of admission of women students in the University in all courses. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner that 2nd respondent- University vide Letter, dated 26.07.2024, on the next date of registration of the aforesaid crime, temporarily suspended the petitioner from the course and pursuant to such temporary suspension, though the petitioner made a representation on 21.12.2024 requesting 2nd and 3rd respondents to revoke the suspension proceedings, 2nd respondent vide Order in D.O.Lr.No.SPMVV/RP/2024, dated 03.01.2025 stating that the accusation against the petitioner was serious in nature and it destroyed the reputation of the University and they were unable to revoke the suspension order till the finalization of the Criminal Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that prior to her suspension, no notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation and no enquiry was also conducted by the respondent-authorities and in case, even if the petitioner was proved innocent in the case, she would lose her valuable Academic tenure, which cannot be compensated. Learned counsel while SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 13 placing reliance on the proposition of law in Adwait Amrish Goel v. Mukesh Patel School of Technology3 would contend that in a similar case of this nature, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed the Order passed against the petitioner therein expelling from the Institute. The relevant paragraph No.4 reads thus: “…We are also of the view that, registration of a crime cannot be taken as a gospel truth and held out to be a foundation to expel the petitioner. It is not the case of the Institute that the petitioner has indulged into illegal activities in the campus in relation to its students and/or Institute… …In our view, if the impugned orders are not quashed, would certainly harm his career, which cannot be compensation in terms of money or otherwise. The petitioner cannot therefore be made to suffer the consequences merely on the basis of the allegations made against him and that too, before trial…” A perusal of the above case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would goes to show that the petitioner therein was expelled from the Institute on account of registration of a crime against him nor arising out and/or in relation to Institute and/or student of Institute but otherwise. 10. In the case on hand, the petitioner was pursuing Five (05) year Integrated Law Course i.e. B.A., LL.B., and she was in 8th Semester, and even as per her contention, Notification was already 3 Writ Petition No.9889 of 2017, dated 10.10.2017 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 14 issued by 2nd respondent to conduct examinations for 8th Semester from 02.01.2025. 11. Indisputably, a case in Crime No.254 of 2024 of Tirupati Rural Police Station was registered as against the petitioner and her husband. The accusation leveled in the aforesaid crime is that husband of the petitioner i.e. accused No.2, committed rape over the victim woman. The other accusations that were leveled as against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 342, 292, 323, 506 and 379 read with 34 IPC and Section 66E of the Act, 2000-2008. In Criminal Jurisprudence, it is settled proposition of law that a person is presumed to be innocent until guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Mere registration of a crime cannot, by itself, be a ground to infer that the guilt, as alleged, is established beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner is a woman, pursuing her Law course. No doubt, the alleged conduct of the petitioner is denigrating. However, this Court is of the opinion that by virtue of mere registration of a crime, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, she cannot be deprived of her career by suspending from 2nd respondent-University and she cannot be made to suffer the consequences merely on the basis of allegations made in the FIR against her. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm opinion that the SRK, J W.P.No.1019 of 2025 15 impugned order passed by 2nd respondent, suspending the petitioner, is liable to be set-aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Order vide D.O.Lr.No.SPMVV/RP/2024, dated 03.01.2025 passed by 2nd respondent-University suspending the petitioner from Sri Padmavathi Mahila Visvavidhyalayam, (Women’s University), Tirupati is set-aside. Respondent No.2-University is directed to permit the petitioner to forthwith resume her studies. It is needless to state that respondent No.2-University shall condone the deficiency in attendance, if any, for the period from the date of the impugned Order till the date on which the petitioner is permitted to resume her studies. The petitioner shall submit her unconditional undertaking that she would maintain the requisite discipline during her period of study. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 13th August, 2025. DNB