Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010052142026 2026:GAU-AS:6839 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1557/2026 SHRI BISHAL PATOWARY S/O HIRANYA KUMAR PATOWARY, R/O TETELIA, P.O. MALIGAON RAILWAY, HQ, PS- JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAMPIN- 781011- VERSUS THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, JALUKBARI, P.O-GUWAHATI-14, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2:THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI P.O- GUWAHATI-14 ASSAM DISTRICT- KAMRUP 3:ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT LOK BHAWAN GUWAHATI PIN-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR G J SHARMA, MS. K BHATTACHARYYA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, G U Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 18.05.2026 Hear Mr. G. J. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Also heard Mr. P. J. Phukan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati University. 2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this matter is disposed of at the motion stage itself. By way of this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the viva voce examination of the petitioner and to complete the entire process of evaluation of his Ph.D. thesis within the time frame prescribed under the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a research scholar pursuing his PhD at Gauhati University, 2020-2021 batch. Being admitted in January 2021, the petitioner states that his PhD final registration was done on 18.04.2024 w.e.f 28.01.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to submit his thesis after completion of 3 years of research work, but not later than 5 years. The petitioner states that he submitted his thesis on 13.02.2025 and it is also stated that evaluation was also done in respect of the said thesis, pursuant to which the only step that should be taken was the viva voce test for completion of his PhD and award of degree. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that till date, no viva voce test was conducted with regard to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, received a Show Cause Notice Page No.# 3/6 from the Registrar of Gauhati University, by which it was stated that consequent upon submission of recommendations by the Internal Complaint Committee, Gauhati University, regarding a written complaint received, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to file his reply within 10 days under Rule 8(6) of the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015. 4. In pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner had filed his reply on 22.10.2025. Thereafter, the matter was placed in a meeting of the Executive Council dated 11.11.2025 and the Executive Council had resolved that the council after a detailed discussion by considering the report of allegations against the petitioner, as well as the legal opinion by the standing counsel, resolved that an FIR be lodged against the petitioner for a case of groping, and that, thereafter, the FIR was lodged. 5. The petitioner also submits that he filed an appeal before the authority concerned but the same is yet to be disposed of for reasons best known to the appellate authority. 6. The petitioner, thereafter, states that on his representation being submitted before the Hon’ble Chancellor, the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Governor's Secretariat, Lok Bhavan, by a communication to the Registrar of Gauhati University, the opinion of the Hon’ble Governor cum Chancellor of Gauhati University was conveyed to the effect that conduction of viva voce of the petitioner can't be withheld on the pretext of some disciplinary proceeding. It was also conveyed that continuance of the disciplinary proceeding and allowing the petitioner to appear for his viva voce for the purpose of the petitioner's PhD degree are two different aspects which needs to Page No.# 4/6 be dealt differently. 7. By the said letter, it was directed that viva voce of the petitioner should be conducted immediately. After the said letter dated 15.12.2025, however, the petitioner further states that the Registrar of Gauhati University, forwarded an email dated 06.03.2026 to various authorities against the request of the petitioner for holding his viva voce test by stating inter alia that, after receiving the reply of the petitioner against the Show Cause Notice, the matter was placed in the meeting of the Executive Council, whereby, the council gave his opinion to lodge an FIR against the petitioner, which was accordingly lodged. Thus, according to the petitioner, the said course of action was in the teeth of the communication of the Hon’ble Governor cum Chancellor of Gauhati University, which was conveyed long back on 15.12.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said direction of the Hon’ble Governor was not complied with by the authority concerned and having no alternative, the instant writ petition was filed. 8. Mr. P. J. Phukan, the learned, Standing counsel for the Gauhati University, placed an instruction from the Registrar of the Gauhati University, wherein, it was stated that the Internal Complaint Committee submitted its report on the sexual harassment case instituted against the petitioner and the said report was accepted and was communicated to the petitioner, who was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause, which was accordingly filed, and, thereafter, the matter was again placed in the meeting of the Executive Council, who had resolved to file an FIR. 9. The learned counsel for the Gauhati University places the regulations, namely the University Grant Commission (Prevention, Prohibition, Redressal Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Page No.# 5/6 Institutions) Regulations, 2015 which provides that in case of a student, if allegations of sexual harassment is made, the Higher Educational Institution (HEI) may expel and strike off the name of the said student from the roll of the institution including denial of re-admission, if the offense so warrants but subject to severity of the offense. It is, as such seen that the rider, severity of the offense, needs to be proved or established and after that, the said punishment can be awarded upon the said student. In the said provision, there is another rider that the punishment can be imposed only, if the offense warrants and the said exercise for establishing the severity of the offense as well as whether the offense warrants has to be gone into. 10. In the instant case, only an FIR was decided to be lodged and the same was lodged according to the learned counsel for the University and nothing further has been done to prove or establish the aforesaid riders. On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner had submitted his thesis way back on 13.02.2025 and it is provided under the UGC Regulation that the higher educational institution should complete the entire process of evaluating a PhD thesis including the declaration of viva voce result within a period of 6 months from the date of submission of the thesis. In the instant case, the petitioner having submitted his thesis in the month of February 2025, the 6 months as provided had elapsed in the month of August 2025 and a considerable length of time has gone by till date. 11. It is also noticed that the complaints regarding the sexual offense by the informant was filed in April 2025 and a report of the Internal Complaints Committee was placed before the Executive Council on 11.11.2025, i.e. after the stipulated 6 months period was over. Be that as it may, the consideration of the thesis submitted by the research scholar is a different aspect of the matter Page No.# 6/6 which has to be according to the regulations mentioned herein above. Further, the opinion of the Hon’ble Governor cum Chancellor of the university was also to the effect that the consideration of the thesis will not be stopped due to some departmental proceeding. 12. The criminal case instituted against the petitioner is also at a nascent stage. Further, it is noticed that a research scholar is required to submit his thesis after completion of three years from the date of registration, subject to the maximum period of five years, and the petitioner has complied with the said requirement. Since the FIR has only recently been lodged and the petitioner’s appeal has also not yet been disposed, thereby indicating that the allegations against the petitioner have not attained finality, this Court is of the opinion that the concerned authorities of the University should consider conducting the viva voce examination of the petitioner and complete the entire process, along with consequential action, in compliance with the opinion of the Hon’ble Governor within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 13. 13. Further, the recommendation of the Internal Complaints Committee of Gauhati University to the effect that the Ph.D. degree should not be conferred upon the respondent is hereby interfered with by this Court. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant