Telangana HC Issues Notice On BITS Pilani Student's Plea Against Her Rustication On Allegations Of Aiding Sexual Harassment Of Students

The Telangana High Court has issued notice on a second-year female student of BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus challenging her rustication by the college as illegal and against the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees & Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2015.

The petitioner has claimed that her rustication also violates of her rights under Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has claimed that the Internal Complaints Committee of the institution had recommended her rustication after inquiring into certain complaints by students containing allegations of sexual harassment and her involvement in it. 

Justice K Lakshman in his January 10 order said, "Notice to respondent Nos.3 to 7(BITS Pilani). Personal notice is permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file proof of service. List on 23.01.2025 immediately after fresh matters. In the meanwhile, Sri M.P.Kashyap, learned Standing Counsel for University Grants Commission appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 shall get instructions". 

The matter is next listed on January 23. 

The respondents in the matter include–the state, UGC, BITS Pilani its registrar Vice Chancellor and Director as well as the Internal Complaints Committee of the institution. 

The plea claims that she she wrote BITSAT which is the ALL India Entrance test for the BITS Pilani University and secured the 25^th rank and was admitted into the Hyderabad Campus in 2023 to pursue her Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science Engineering.

That, since the campus is completely residential, she has been residing in the college since her admission. She has alleged that on November 9, 2024, the hostel warden along with two other persons entered her room without permission, began yelling at her, confiscated all her electronic gadgets including her phone and laptop, and escorted her out of her hostel in a rash manner.

She has claimed that when she reached outside the hostel, she saw a professor of her's waiting downstairs. The professor escorted her into room, where the petitioner was enquired by two professors for almost 3 hours. During this time, she has claimed that she was threatened repeatedly and forced to give a statement as per the liking of the professors.

She claims that throughout this process, she was never informed what the issue was, and only vague indications were made that an anonymous complaint had been received against her by another student.

She has contended that even the statement given by her was not recorded in totality and only as per the liking of her professors. That not once through the whole inquiry did she ever get to look at a copy of the complaint, she has said. That, soon after the statement was given she was rusticated on the spot, and after endless pleading was given a phone to call her father and inform him of the situation, she claims. 

She has alleged that once her father reached the University he was treated similarly to her and no details were disclosed to him either. He was informed of the rustication and directed to leave the college immediately with his daughter.

She claims that on November 12 last year she was finally informed about the allegations against her, which includes "luring hapless students by a series of deliberate confidence-building steps, posing as a 'trusted' senior; arranging and offering alcoholic beverages and trying to repeatedly convince the victims to go clubbing with her and another student outside campus; accompanying the victims to the party and leaving them alone with another student once they were drunk, where they were sexually assaulted and exploited by him".

The petitioner has alleged that she and her family has been trying to get in touch with the University, but there has been no fruitful response. That, her confiscated electronic gadgets which have all her personal data are still in the possession of the University and not been returned.

She claims that none of the UGC Regulations were followed in her case and the petitioner was never even given an opportunity to defend her case. That although as per the Regulations, the recommendations of the committee are binding on the University, the same cannot be accepted when no procedure was followed, she has said. 

“Further, it is not out of place to mention that, by virtue of the Regulations, the findings of the respondent No.7 committee (ICC) are binding on the University except in exceptional circumstances as to why the recommendations are not taken into consideration, when the entire procedure of the respondent No.7 committee is itself vitiated then, there is no question of any fair adjudication by the Executive Committee of the University,” the plea states. 

Thus, she prayed that the proceedings for rustication be stayed and be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; the ICC recommendations be set aside; BITS Pilani be directed to return all her seized electronic gadgets among other reliefs. She has further prayed that State's Women & Child Development Department along with the University Grants Commission be directed to frame unified guidelines for the enforcement of UGC Regulations 2015 within the state. She has further sought that the college be directed to allow her back into the campus and continue her B.Tech., CSE course.

Case title: Aarthi Reddy Kaipa vs. State of Telangana and Others

Case No: WP 1287/2025

Counsel for petitioner: SOMA SRINATH REDDY

Click Here To Read/Download Order