With high resolution CCTV cameras installed at the Proctor Office it can be very easy to identify the REAL CULPRITS. But it is astonishing to note that Proctor Office has not relied on the CCTV footage to identify the culprits and has prepared the list of the students without any established evidence (“Evidence” as defined in Indian Evidence Act, 1872). To keep the accused student in dark regarding the materials used against him during any discipline inquiry is a sheer violation of the principle of natural justice and the established law of the land. This seriously questions the credibility of AMU as a true democratic Central Govt. funded institution which follows the basic principle of law such as principle of natural justice. Providing all the evidences to an accused during any discipline proceedings is natural requirement in law and such has been ruled in several Supreme Court judgments.

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal, (1998) 6 SCC 651 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held

“where the charge-sheet is issued and the documents which are proposed to be utilized against that person are indicated in the charge-sheet but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request and at the same time he is called upon to submit his reply cannot constitute an effective opportunity to defend The aforesaid decision is of no help to the facts of the respondent's case.”

As claimed by the students some of the names in the list were not present at the Proctor Office during the time of incidence nor were they involved in any way in the whole incidence. Some were studying in the Library, some were present in their halls of residences and some were preparing for their examination which was to be held on very next day. Some of the students are in their final year and have their remaining examinations from 18th and their results to be displayed in 1st week of June. Some of them have been placed in companies and are waiting to get their degrees. It is painful to note that students have been SUSPENDED till ENQUIRY without any EVIDENCE. What mechanism has proctor used to ensure that no innocent student is trapped? How will the administration recover the loss of the student if he is found INNOCENT after 2-3 months of enquiry? Natural justice suggests that “Burden of proof lies on the accuser”. What is the evidence that the students listed were involved in the incidence?

In the famous Meneka Gandhi vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court597 the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the increasing importance of Natural Justice and observed that Natural Justice is a great humanizing principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure Justice and over the years it has grown in to a widely pervasive rule. The Supreme Court extracted a speech of Lord Morris in the House of Lords which is an very interesting speech (I quote)

That the conception of natural justice should at all stages guide those who dischargejudicial functions is not merely an acceptable but is an essential part f the philosophy ofthe law. We often speak of the rules of natural justice. But there is nothing rigid ormechanical about them. What they comprehend has been analysed and described in many authorities. But any analysis must bring into relief rather their spirit and theirinspiration than any precision of definition nor precision as to application. We do notsearch for prescriptions which will lay down exactly what must, in various divergent situations, be done. The principle and procedures are to be applied which, in anyparticular situation or set of circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it has been said, is only “fair play in action”. Nor do we wait for directions from Paliament.

Hon’ble Supreme court of India in (Keshri Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1979 3 SLR 1 (Raj.) case held “It is not at all necessary that the disciplinary authority shall itself hold the enquiry. There is nothing in the Constitution or in the Rules, which can prevent the disciplinary authority from holding the enquiry itself. But if the delinquent raises any question of bias on sound reasons, he may not hold the enquiry. Thus in a case, where from all circumstances it was clear that the petitioner reasonably had an apprehension that the disciplinary authority holding the enquiry was biased against him and had made up his mind to punish him, this bias would vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. “

Therefore it is strictly demanded that :

Students suspended in 30.4.11 incident who have no solid evidence against him (CCTV footage) must be considered INNOCENT till enquiry and their SUSPENSION must be immediately REVOKED. They must be allowed to appear in the examinations starting from 18th May and collect their results so that the future of the INNOCENT students is not destroyed. [according to the Principle of Natural Justice which states that Both sides shall be heard, or audi alteram partem ]

And an UNBIASED enquiry be done as soon as possible KEEPING AWAY all the people from the DC who are controversial or alleged to be an accuse in the incident no matter what administrative position they hold in AMU or its disciplinary body [according to the Principle of Natural Justice which states that No man shall be Judge in his own cause ]

CBI Enquiry on the incidents that took place on 29.4.11 and 30.4.11 and strict action against the culprits no matter what administrative position they hold in AMU. [ according to Article 14 of Indian Constitution- “Equality before law – The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”]