JNU rusticates Umar Khalid, 2 others; Rs 10,000 fine on Kanhaiya

April 25, 2016

New Delhi, Apr 25: The JNU today rusticated Umar Khalid and two other students for varying duration and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Kanhaiya Kumar in connection with the February 9 event on the campus against Afzal Guru's hanging.

Umar was rusticated for one semester, another student leader Anirban Bhattacharya till July 15 and Mujeeb Gattoo for two semesters. As per decision, Bhattacharya has been barred from pursuing any course in JNU for next 5 years.

JNU students union president Kanhaiya, Umar and Anirban were arrested on charges of sedition in February in connection with the controversial event and are out on bail. Their arrest had triggered widespread protests.

The campus has been made out of bounds for two former students -- Banojyotsana Lahiri and Draupadi -- while hostel facilities have been withdrawn for Ashutosh Kumar for a year and Komal Mohite till July 21.

A high-level committee constituted by the university to probe the February 9 event found ABVP member Saurabh Sharma, who had objected to the event, "guilty" of blocking traffic on the day of the event and penalised him with Rs 20,000.

Surprisingly, Aishwarya Adhikari, whose name was not mentioned in the report, has also been imposed the same penalty.

"Based on the report of the high-level committee which arrived at its conclusion based on depositions, perusal of video clips (provided by JNU Security and authenticated by forensic tests), and examination of documents on record, the university has decided to rusticate three students," a senior university official told PTI.

"While Anirban Bhattacharya has been rusticated till 15 July, he will not be able to pursue any course or participate in any activity on campus for next five years, Umar Khalid has been rusticated for one semester and Mujeeb Gattoo for two semesters," the official said.

He said financial penalty has been imposed on 14 students including Kanhaiya who has been penalised with Rs 10,000.

While Umar and Anirban were found guilty of triggering communal violence and disrupting communal harmony on campus, Mujeeb was found guilty of participating in the sloganeering.

The report of the five-member panel had also pointed out lapses on part of administration and taken into account the role of outsiders into the event. However, no action has been taken against any administrative official.

"As per the committee findings, application for holding this event 'circumvented' the 'permission process' and 'the organisers disobeyed the instructions from the administration' not to hold it and that amounted to 'willful defiance'," the JNU official said.

He said disciplinary measures have been taken for not following university procedures, providing misinformation to the university, misconduct and indiscipline, causing and colluding in the unauthorised entry of any person into the campus, putting up objectionable posters, arousing communal, caste or regional feelings and creating disharmony, blockade or forceful prevention of any normal movement of traffic and violation of security, safety rules notified by the university.

Based on the preliminary report of the committee, the university had suspended eight students, however, their suspension was revoked when the panel had submitted it report on March 11.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments