“We feel that the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an impediment to restoration of normalcy and bringing cordiality back between the appellant and the respondents in their professional and personal capacities.”
These were the words of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 21 February, as it disposed of an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to quash an FIR lodged against faculty members of IIT Kanpur alleging caste-based discrimination.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari, according to Livelaw, adopted a “conciliatory approach” in the case, noting that the allegations and counter-allegations damage the reputation of the premier institution.
Thus the bench suggested that the chairman of the board of governors invite the complainant and the four professors he had complained against for a conversation.
"We, therefore, at this stage, are not inclined to continue with these proceedings and deem it appropriate to dispose of the same, with a recommendation to the chairman of the Board of Governors to invite the appellant and all the four respondents together and ensure that there are no pending misunderstandings or misgivings between them so as to guarantee professionalism and an ideal academic atmosphere in the institution.”Supreme Court
More Details
The court, however, did observe that the “unfortunate episode” which pertained to four senior professors Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, Ishan Sharma, Rajiv Shekhar, and Sanjay Mittal, allegedly “hurting the sentiments, prestige, and dignity” of Subrahmanyam Saderla, a Dalit academician had compelled him to file a police complaint.
According to Livelaw, the four upper-caste academics denied the allegations, but also pledged before the court "to never do any such thing, or make any comments, which may hurt the sentiments and feelings of the appellant in any manner."
But What Had Happened?
According to Saderla’s complaint, the four faculty members had subjected him to caste-based discrimination and harassment.
The charges were also reportedly upheld by a three-member panel led by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which had in turn directed the institute to file a complain against the four under relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
But the Allahabad High Court had subsequently quashing the FIR, on grounds that the issuing of such a direction was beyond the scope of the commission’s powers.
Note: An enquiry committee headed by a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court had also found the allegations to be true. The faculty forum of the institute, however, reportedly expressed support for the accused professors and asked the institute to defend them too.
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)