MGCU Motihari’s expulsion of MA student unfair; Patna HC orders university to reinstate him

The Patna High Court has directed Mahatma Gandhi Central University (MGCU) to allow Akash Kumar, a postgraduate student of the Department of Media Studies, to return to the university, complete his course and appear for examinations.

The order came earlier this week in a writ petition filed by Kumar, who challenged his suspension and expulsion from MGCU in 2024 after he raised complaints against a non-teaching employee and posted allegations of administrative irregularities on social media.

The court set aside the August 14, 2024 expulsion order, observing that Kumar had not been given the disciplinary committee's inquiry report or a specific show-cause notice before he was expelled for an indefinite period.

The court directed MGCU to "induct" Kumar into the institution and allow him to complete his course and appear for examinations. “It is also expected that the petitioner shall also maintain discipline in the institution,” the court said.

Also read IIT Ropar: Faculty ‘harassment’, forced resignation, a self-argued case – how a scholar won her PhD seat back

MGCU Motihari: Fight over promotions

The dispute began in June 2024 when MGCU started the promotion process of a non-teaching employee. Kumar and others filed complaints alleging irregularities in the process. According to the petition, no action was taken on the complaints, following which Kumar posted the allegations on social media.

The university issued a show-cause notice to Kumar on July 12, 2024, alleging “misconduct and indiscipline behaviour” and stating that his conduct attracted penal provisions under cybercrime, according to the court order.

Kumar submitted his reply on July 18 and also asked the university to take action against the UDC clerk. A second show-cause notice was issued on July 19, to which Kumar replied on July 25.

Kumar, then a first-semester MA journalism and mass communication student, was suspended on July 25, 2024, on the recommendation of the chief proctor.

Moving the Patna High Court

He approached the Patna High Court on August 7, challenging his suspension. The university issued the expulsion order a week later, on August 14, 2024. Kumar was barred from entering any of the university campuses – MGCU Motihari has five – and from taking admission to any programme at the university.

Also read ‘Politics minus education’: Why West Bengal colleges are wary of govt-appointed governing body presidents

The MGCU opposed Kumar's petition, telling the court that “he created a bad environment in the institution, paralyzing its functioning, obstructing ingress and egress of staff and students at large”.

The university also said Kumar had led dharnas on several occasions on the campus, “disrupting the peaceful environment.” It said show-cause notices had been issued to him and that his replies were found unsatisfactory.

The university further said it had followed the required procedure. According to its submission, a “discipline committee” was constituted.

Based on the proctorial board's report and the committee's recommendation, Kumar was expelled for "serious indiscipline and recalcitrant disposition".

Lapses in MGCU’s disciplinary action

The court noted that the matter had been referred to the discipline committee, but Kumar was not given the committee's report setting out the findings of the inquiry.

The court also noted that Kumar was not given a specific show-cause notice asking why he should not be expelled before the expulsion order was passed.

Also read UGC control, scholar attacks, sackings: India’s academic freedom ‘severely restricted’ in 2026, says SAR

The court said that a student facing disciplinary action must be given a fair chance to defend himself. It also noted that “the proctor shall have the power to suspend or rusticate a student up to a maximum period of two weeks and/or impose a fine as prescribed from time to time.”

The court said the expulsion order was for an indefinite period and that such an order was not authorised under the act or the relevant ordinance. It held that the action of the university authorities “does not withstand the test of fairness, besides clearly violating the principle of natural justice.”