Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, in his capacity as Chancellor of the National Law University (NLU), Jodhpur, has set aside anti-ragging sanctions imposed on a student of the University.

Justice Agrawal noted that the only finding against the student was his presence in the room where the incident took place and held that no proper or reasonable opportunity was afforded to him to place his case.

The order came in an appeal by a student under Regulation 9.1(c)(ii) of the University Grants Commission's (UGC) anti-ragging regulations. He challenged the order of the Registrar which followed a UGC helpline complaint, an Anti-Ragging Squad inquiry and an Anti-Ragging Committee finding of ragging under Regulations 3(b), 3(g), 3(h) and 5(b).

The order suspended him from the hostel for a year, debarred him from representing the University in 2026-27, restricted his sports, cultural and library access, and barred contact with the complainant or witnesses.

Registrar Dr Sunita Pankaj and Prof (Dr) Shilohu Rao, Committee chairperson, defended the order. They said that Regulation 6.3(e), which governs the Squad's inquiry, gives only a right to place material, not to receive documents, which the student exercised in full.

They also said that the complainant is a minor whose identity Regulation 6.2(g) protects. The University added that it has furnished the entire record and that the UGC accepted its report.

The Anti-Ragging Squad had found that the complainant, a first-year student, was called to SRK Hall by another student on August 6, after which an altercation followed.

The complainant had alleged that he was struck twice with a rod and that the appellant directed the other student to sexually assault him. The Squad had found no medical support for the rod allegation and could not ascertain the alleged directive.

The Chancellor noted that as per the University itself, the appellant did not call the complainant, who went to the other student's room on his own. Considering the record, the Squad's findings and the lack of a proper opportunity, he set aside the order.

He added that the appellant must maintain good conduct and avoid the complainant and witnesses.

"However, it is made clear that the appellant would maintain good conduct on campus and in the hostel, and will not contact or approach the complainant or any witness and he is warned to be careful in future. It is also made clear that I have not made any opinion with regard to the other student, if any, who has been held liable for the incident," the order states.

Advocates Mudit Nagpal and Nishant Gaba appeared for the appellant student.

[Read Order]