Kanhaiya was fined by JNU for alleged 'misbehaviour' with girl student

March 11, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 11: Amid a raging row at JNU, it has now emerged that its students' union president Kanhaiya Kumar, who is facing sedition charge, was fined by the varsity administration last year for allegedly "misbehaving" with a girl student and "threatening" her.

The incident had occurred on June 10, 2015, when the girl student asked Kanhaiya, who at the time was not the students' union president, to not urinate in the open inside the campus.

The girl, who now teaches at Delhi University, alleged that Kanhaiya "misbehaved" with her when she objected and also called her a "psychopath" while threatening her with dire consequences.

Following a complaint by her, the JNU administration held a proctorial inquiry that found Kanhaiya guilty.

"The university... has found Kanhaiya Kumar guilty of misbehaving with an ex-student (female) and threatening her.

"This act is serious in nature and unbecoming of a student of JNU and calls for a strict disciplinary action against him (Kanhaiya)... keeping his career prospects in mind, the Vice Chancellor has taken a lenient view in the matter," said the office order issued on October 16, 2015 by the then Chief Proctor, Krishna Kumar.

"Kanhaiya is fined Rs 3,000 and also warned to be careful and not get involved in any such incidents in future. Otherwise, strict disciplinary action will be taken against him," the order said.

While an unsigned order was shared on social media by the girl, who accused Kanhaiya of being a "false revolutionary making claims about upholding the dignity of women", the university administration confirmed in a statement that the letter was authentic and action was taken against the student leader.

"I am dejected and pained to see how my JNU community has ganged up to create false revolutionary. I want to ask, do you really understand the D for Dignity of a female, Mr Kanhaiya?

"Unzipping your private part in public and urinating on road— are these your revolutionary tools to uphold a female's dignity? I am shocked to see how a misogynist like Kanhaiya is being hailed as revolutionary," she said in an open letter that is circulating online.

Kanhaiya faces sedition charges in connection with an event on campus against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which anti-national slogans were allegedly raised.

He was granted interim bail for six months by the Delhi High Court last week after spending 18 days in jail.

Meanwhile, All India Students Federation (AISF), the outfit to which Kanhaiya belongs, said in a statement "talk about public urination and threatening are being spread to malign Kanhaiya's image. He had a verbal argument with the girl following which she had registered a complaint.

"We do respect the girl's right to criticise Kanhaiya but we want to reiterate that he has always stood for gender justice. Also, when the incident took place, he was not the president of the students' union," it added.

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