Calcutta High Court Foresees Brighter Future for Jadavpur University

Calcutta High Court Foresees Brighter Future for Jadavpur University

Calcutta High Court Foresees Brighter Future for Jadavpur University

The Calcutta High Court stated on Monday, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) lawsuit outlining the concerns linked to the functioning of the university [Sudip Raha vs Jadavpur University], that things may be going through a “bad patch” at Jadavpur University, but they will hopefully improve soon. The petition was filed by Sudip Raha. [Sudip Raha vs Jadavpur University].

A division bench consisting of the Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya stated that it will hear the students of the university and make them understand that they need to be ‘proud’ to be an alumnus of the school. The bench’s statement was made public.

Students will be listened to, and they will be made aware of the significance of maintaining their status as alumni of this varsity, which will be emphasised. You ought to be pleased with your graduation from this college or university. The Chief Justice made the remark that after 15 years, if you are invited to an alumni meet, you should be glad to attend with nice recollections rather than traumatic experiences in order to participate in the event.

The bench noted that this line of thinking needs to be ingrained in the minds of the students, who, according to the petitioners, have become increasingly violent.

“Their (the pupils’) minds are still young, and they will comprehend. It’s not like you get to be the senior and beat up on the junior when you do that. We have no doubts that this is possible. Every organisation goes through a rough patch at some point; the varsity is undoubtedly in the midst of one right now; but, things will change and become better,” the Chief Justice emphasised.

The bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that highlighted the “state of affairs” at Jadavpur University, which led to the suicide of a first-year BA student who had reportedly been victimised by ragging at the hands of his seniors.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, who was arguing on behalf of the petitioner, stressed the fact that senior students who have already graduated continue to remain in the university’s hostel and haze freshmen who have just started attending the university.

The practise of hazing has been going on for decades in total. Ragging is now being done to a first-year student today. The seed of criminality is germinating in his head. The next day, when he will be a senior, he will continue to do the same thing. When I was in the ninth grade, we all lived in a dorm together, and the hazing back then consisted of things like “go swim” and “introduce yourself.” Because of my elders, I became proficient at swimming. But now they are resorting to even more inhumane methods. The Senior Advocate brought to everyone’s attention that only recently, one of the students passed away.

During the course of the hearing, the attorney who was representing the university reminded the judge that a number of political groups have been holding demonstrations on the campus of the school and are also attempting to infiltrate the premises.

According to the bench, political parties are not allowed to use this incident for their own benefit.

“No, you are not going to be able to turn this into a political fight. On campus, political gatherings of any kind would be strictly prohibited. Any type of peaceful protest is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be suppressed; however, protests that are disruptive to the public will need to be regulated. The bench emphasised that it was unnecessary to state that the police have sufficient authorities to regulate demonstrations of this nature.

During the course of the hearing, the panel of judges expressed their opinion that if there is a disagreement within the confines of the university, it can be settled with the participation of various parties such as the administration, students’ unions, and professors.

“However, if boys from off campus enter the university, innocent people are affected, and the university is becoming famous for the wrong reasons, then the university cannot decide to close down the hostel, can it?” The judges on the bench were curious.

The lawyer for the university stated that it would be quite difficult to close down the hostel.

The Chief Justice’s response to this was as follows:

“Perhaps. ” “Mr. counsel, if there is a way, there is a will there to take it.”

If it is just a problem within the institution, nothing more has to be done about it, in the opinion of the Chief Justice. However, if it has the potential to become a criminal matter, is having an effect on the general public, and the university is allowing students to use it as a political platform, then serious action is required.

In the meantime, Advocate General (AG) SN Mookerjee, who was representing the state of West Bengal, argued that ragging occurs in the majority of the country’s top educational institutions and is not unique to West Bengal.

If the kids can’t keep the peace and harmony among themselves, then the teachers will have to resort to more severe measures. These are the kinds of experiences that have the potential to make or break a person. It is a really significant problem. “We will ensure that whatever your lordships order, we will implement the same in all of the institutions across the State,” the AG guaranteed. “We will ensure that whatever your lordships order, we will implement the same.”

He also informed the bench that an investigation into the death of the first-year student is being conducted by the police apparatus. He went on to say that a separate case had been opened against some of the students who had impeded the police officers’ ability to enter the premises of the university.

The bench decided to continue hearing the case on September 5 and issued an order to the petitioner instructing them to implead students’ unions of the university so that the court may hear the students’ point of view. The judge adjourned the matter for further hearing until September 5.