"‘Natural Justice Is Not a Mere Form but a Foundational Right’: Orissa High Court Stays NHRC Proceedings Against KIIT in Student Suicide Case, Flags Ex Parte Order and Lack of Fair Hearing"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi directed a stay on all further proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission in connection with Case No.134/18/28/2025-WC. The Court held that the absence of notice and denial of an opportunity to be heard rendered the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 susceptible to challenge and prima facie violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order, as well as any consequential steps taken by the authorities, until the next hearing date.
The writ petition was filed by the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), represented through its Registrar, seeking quashing of multiple actions taken by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). These included the order of cognizance dated 03.03.2025, the constitution of a Spot Inquiry Team, the subsequent inquiry report submitted by the team, and the final ex parte order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the NHRC in Case No.134/18/28/2025-WC.
The petition arose in the backdrop of a student’s suicide on 16.02.2025. Prior to her death, the student had filed a complaint with the University’s International Relations Officer on 12.03.2024, alleging the circulation of personal photographs by another student, Mr. Advik Srivastava. This complaint was referred to the Disciplinary Committee, which resolved the matter after Mr. Srivastava assured that all such material would be deleted. The deceased expressed satisfaction with the resolution and declined to escalate the matter.
On 25.01.2025, an altercation occurred between the deceased and Mr. Srivastava, leading to mutual undertakings by both individuals to refrain from any future contact. However, further disputes followed, involving the victim’s brother, Mr. Siddhant Sigdal, who allegedly threatened Mr. Srivastava. Written undertakings were once again submitted by all parties involved on 29.01.2025, with the deceased also providing verbal assurance that she would raise no further grievance.
Tragically, on 16.02.2025, the student was found deceased in her room, and an FIR (No.0054/2025) was registered the same day. Mr. Srivastava was arrested on 17.02.2025 and remained in custody thereafter.
Subsequently, the NHRC took suo motu cognizance of the incident on 03.03.2025 and constituted a Spot Inquiry Team comprising senior officials. A site inspection was carried out between 06.03.2025 and 08.03.2025 at the KIIT premises. The university was informed of the visit by the Inspector-in-Charge of Info City Police Station.
On 27.03.2025, based on the inquiry, the NHRC passed an ex parte order. The petitioners contended that they had not been served with the complaint, the order of cognizance, or the inquiry report prior to the passing of this order. They argued that the lack of procedural fairness violated Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard when a person’s conduct or reputation is at risk of being prejudicially affected.
The petitioners further contended that the Supreme Court, in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, had already taken cognizance of the same incident and formed a National Task Force under Article 142 of the Constitution to address student suicides in educational institutions. In light of this development and the concurrent jurisdiction under Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, the NHRC should have refrained from issuing its own findings.
The petitioners maintained that they were compelled to approach the High Court due to the adverse consequences flowing from the NHRC’s actions and sought a stay on the impugned order and further proceedings.
The Court examined the procedural aspects surrounding the NHRC’s actions. It referred to the mandatory procedural safeguards required under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:
“If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission—(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or (b) is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, it shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence.”
Justice Panigrahi noted that such safeguards are not optional:
“When orders are passed by quasi-judicial authorities, adherence to the principles of natural justice is not a mere formality but a foundational requirement.”
The Court recorded that the petitioners had not received the relevant documents:
“Neither a copy of the said complaint nor the order of cognizance was served upon the Petitioners.”
It took serious note of the failure to share the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the impugned order:
“Although the officials of the National Human Rights Commission undertook an inquiry and subsequently prepared a report, neither the said report nor its findings were made available to the authorities of the Petitioners’ Institution prior to the issuance of the impugned order.”
Regarding the Supreme Court’s involvement in the broader issue of suicides in educational institutions, the Court acknowledged:
“The Supreme Court has formed a National Task Force under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, to examine the issue.”
The Court stated that this development called for institutional restraint on the part of the NHRC:
“In light of the provision under Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the learned National Human Rights Commission ought to have shown some restraint before passing the impugned order.”
The Court concluded that a prima facie case for interim protection existed and the matter required further examination.
The Court issued notice to Opposite Party Nos.1, 5, 6, and 7, returnable by 26 April 2025. The State’s counsel waived notice on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4.
The Court directed:
“As an interim measure, it is directed that all further proceedings in Case No.134/18/28/2025-WC, presently pending before the learned National Human Rights Commission (Opposite Party No.1), shall remain stayed until the next date of listing of this matter.”
Further, the Court stayed the enforcement of the NHRC’s order:
“It is further directed that the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, passed in the aforesaid case, shall also remain stayed until the matter is next taken up by this Court.”
The Court restrained authorities from taking any steps based on the impugned order:
“The Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6 are hereby directed to refrain from taking any further steps or actions pursuant to the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, until the next date on which this matter is listed before this Court.”
The matter was posted for hearing on 29 April 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate and Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pravu Prasanna Behera, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar & Anr. v. National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.9556 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb.Kumar Panigrahi
[Read/Download order]
