‘University authorities cannot play with life of students’; Jharkhand HC orders BIT MESRA to pay Rs 20 Lakhs in dalit student death case

Jharkhand High Court: In the present case, appeals were filled by the appellants for bail in FIR under Section 103/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on account of assault of the deceased, a student of BIT MESRA, Ranchi, in the campus who had succumbed to his injuries. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Prasad, J., held that the College should be the campus of study and not a place of quarrel, groupism, or for showing bossism and nefarious activities for assaulting the other students. The students should also refrain from participating in such nefarious design and for showing supremacy over the others except in the case of self-defense. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeals and held that the University authorities could not play with the life of students and that for the tortious and vicarious liability, the College Administration should pay Rs 20,00,000 to the parents of the deceased as compensation.

Background

In the present case, the informant (father of deceased) had lodged FIR alleging that one night, his son informed him to arrive immediately at the College as some students were abusing him in the name of Dalit/Harijan and after some time Vice Principal, Warden of BIT MESRA also informed him that his son was vomiting and had become unconscious due to excessive alcohol consumption.

Upon reaching there, the informant found that his son was becoming unconscious and was vomiting. Thereafter, he brought him to his house in the night and on the next day took him to RIMS Hospital where in course of treatment, he died. The informant stated that there were signs of assault by lathi, danda and belt on the whole body of his son. The informant also alleged that his son always used to inform him that the students of BIT MESRA used to abuse him in the name of Dalit/Harijan and assaulted him by making him naked.

Thereafter, FIR was lodged against unknown persons and BIT MESRA, College Administration. All the four appellants were not named in the FIR, however, during police investigation, their names came to surface, and thus, they were remanded before the Court by the Sub-Inspector, MESRA O.P, Ranchi.

Analysis and Decision

Considering the statements of Supervisor Security, Mess Supervisor, Assistant Warden of Hostel No 2 and college students of BIT MESRA Polytechnic College, the Court opined that the College Administration had deliberately concealed the fact that the deceased sustained brutal assaults on two different occasions at the hands of the appellants. Further, the Court stated that the College Administration had not disclosed the name of any doctor for treating him at the medical dispensary of BIT MESRA, Main Campus.

The Court further considered the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased and concluded that no alcohol was found. Thus, the Court opined that the conduct of College Administration revealed that instead of taking proper step for getting him treated, they allowed him to go with his parents by falsely stating that deceased had taken alcohol in large quantities due to which he had become unwell.

The Court accounted that it was due to the brutal assaults by the appellants that the deceased had sustained as many as nine external injuries and eight internal injuries, his lungs was congested and even the ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. Even the Medical Board consisting of a team of four doctors opined that the deceased died due to combined effect of both external and internal injuries sustained by him.

The Court opined that the youths could not be controlled in their young ages and sometimes they formed their own opinion and act in youthful manner, irrespective of understanding its consequences in future. However, their actions could be tolerated only if it resulted in some minor scuffle. But death of a student for a trifling thing was a serious aspect and could not be allowed to take such an irresponsible decision. Thus, the Court rejected their bail pleas.

The Court observed that the College authorities remained negligent, showed no control over the administration in the College and even the boundary wall of the College was not so satisfactorily constructed, as not only the students of the College but also the staff and security personnels of the College were able to scale the boundary wall of the College campus. Further, CCTV Footage of Hostel No 1 where the occurrence took place was not working and even CCTV Footage outside the campus was not working and thus, it was clear negligence and administrative failure on the part of administration of BIT MESRA University.

The Court stated that the College was supposed to be the campus of study and not a place of quarrel, groupism or for showing bossism and nefarious activities for assaulting the other students. The Court opined that the College Administration took a very casual and negligent approach, and they had not paid any heed to the physical conditions and injuries sustained by the deceased. Further, the Court stated that their approach revealed that they did not take the life of the student who ultimately succumbed to the injury seriously, and they claimed to be innocent by putting the blame upon the parents and family members of the deceased by simply saying that they had pressurized to take him into house instead of taking into hospital to save their own skin.

Stating that the death of the student not only cause loss of love and affections for the parents for their whole life, but they also get deprived of their future and old age protection when they need the most. The College Authority, being protector and guardian of each student, failed to discharge its responsibilityof protecting the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court held that the deceased had died due to negligence on the part of the College Management and due to assault made by the four appellants as well as the unruly mob consisting of 10-15 people.

Considering that the University Authorities could not play with the life of students, the Court dismissed the appeals and held that for the tortious and vicarious liability, the College Administration should pay Rs 20,00,000 to the parents of the deceased as compensation. In view of the hardships of the parents and cold response of Management as well as State Authorities, the Court issued following guidelines in the interest of justice for the whole State of Jharkhand:

1. All the institutions should maintain a list of their tie up Hospitals for treatment in emergency.

2. There should be a Medical Dispensary/Clinic in all the schools/Colleges with one male doctor and one female doctor having capacity of up to 500 to 1000 students in Hostel with medicine kits and lifesaving necessary medicines.

3. All the Engineering Institutions and Technical Institutions should have at least two male doctors and two female doctors with enough nurses and para medical staffs which may have capacity of Boarding students/Hostels having capacity of 1000 to 3000.

4. Necessary security, including private personnels should be maintained by all the College institutes in their premises.

5. All the Colleges should have CCTV Camera inside and outside the classrooms and at the main door of hostels.

6. All the Colleges should have CCTV in sufficient numbers outside the College campus so that they may watch the entry and exit of person outside the campus.

7. All the Colleges should have grievance cell and a team of Monitor students to maintain the coordination between the needy students and the College Administration.

8. All the Colleges/institutes should create a website or portal for redressal of grievances of the students as well as parents.

9. The Colleges should maintain the security system for movement of the students by preparing the necessary SOP.

The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Higher Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand and Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand to prepare a comprehensive SOP for the entire Engineering and Medical Colleges and all the Technical Institutes imparting Graduate Degree and Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma to the students by keeping Medical Dispensaries/Medical Hospital in the College premises near the hostel so that they might be able to get the timely treatment in case of emergency or need of an hour or for any other medical exigency or requirement.

The Court further directed them to prepare SOP for the entire Technical Institutes, Medical, Engineering and Technical Institutes, MBA Colleges imparting education, having hostel facilities of boys of more than one thousand in number and also impress upon the Deemed Universities like BIT MESRA and other deemed Universities or the Colleges to have tie-up with the local administration and the reputed Government Hospitals as well as Private Hospitals in the State or the Districts concerned where such Colleges were situated and running. The Court also directed that College Authorities to frame SOP in the light of the UGC guidelines by preventing anti-ragging or any kind of ragging in the entire State and should follow the UGC guideline of the year 2009.

[Mausam Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 149 of 2025, decided on 12-8-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Appellants: A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate and Santosh Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General, Rajesh Kumar, APP and Srijit Choudhary, Advocate

Buy Constitution of India  HERE