JUDGMENT
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. A representation to the Chief Justice of the Court from the students of the A.P. Agricultural University is registered as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Representation, inter alia, brought to the notice of the Court an incident which occurred on 13-9-1996. A final year B.Sc., (Agrl.) student – Ms. Anuradha, the second petitioner, was subjected to attack allegedly by one N. Srinivas Reddy, a student in Veterinary Science College of 1990 batch by some acid and she suffered extensive and deep burn injuries on her face and other parts of her body. Srinivas Reddy was allegedly harassing her for quite some time and in spite of representations and informations, the Principal and other persons took no steps to prevent him and/or to ensure that she was not harassed. The representation expressed, “Principal of Agriculture College did not bother to provide security though he was in News about the happenings and even went to the extent of passing derogatory remarks on the girls behaviour which continued even after the incident occurred. This provided the culprit a congenial atmosphere to fructify his inhuman plot……Students of the College are in a state of shock and feel highly insecured and are not in a position to attend the exams which are underway. Students have lost confidence in the administrative capabilities of the Principal as he expressed perpetual indifference. Instead of taking stock of the situation he passed the remarks like “I expected this to happen” which shocked 100’s of students at the site of incident. Representation also expressed apprehension that certain influential elements to protect the culprit and dilute the evidence which would bring life threats to some of the students in the campus and that the non-co-operative attitude of University authorities is a carrot to the above apprehension.”
2. The Court issued notice accordingly to the Registrar of the University, the Principal of the Agricultural College, the Director General of Police and N. Srinivas Reddy, B.V.Sc., a student of 1990 batch and others and in course of the proceedings, under its various orders, obtained reports on -(1) hospitalisation and treatment of the wounds of the second petitioner-Ms. Anuradha, if necessary, security to her and generally to the students in the Campus; (2) about the enquiry, if any, held by the University into the conduct of the Principal and other Officials and steps taken by it for prosecuting N. Srinivas Reddy for the alleged offence; and (3) action, if any, on any Officer or teacher of the University who was found negligent and/or in any way involved in the matter. The Court, in course of the hearing, has received full co-operation from the learned Advocate-General, learned counsel for the University, learned counsel for the Principal and learned advocate appearing for other respondents and besides Amicus Curiae’s, appearing for the petitioners, assistance as and when needed in verification and affirmation of the various developments in the treatment of the second petitioner in Osmania General Hospital and in providing to her facilities in course of the recuperation, by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate and his assistant Mr. L. Ravichandar, Advocate. Before proceeding to record the developments which have provided to us materials for issuing necessary directions and disposal of the case with the directions, which we have felt necessary, we record our appreciation to the assistance by the learned counsel for the parties, and besides our appreciation to the service by Smt. Annapurna Devi, learned Advocate of mis Court, who has, under, the orders of the Court, recorded statements of the students and others who have chosen to bring on the record of the instant proceedings information for our conclusions.
3. Facts revealed so far are – (1) Police have registered a case, investigated the same and submitted the report Under Section 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the competent Court for prosecution of N. Srinivas Reddy. N. Srinivas Reddy has, however, since been released on bail. (2) Some sort of preliminary enquiry has been held by Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University into the affair and a report has been submitted, a copy of which is available on the record. (3) Smt. Annapurna Devi has recorded the statements of the students who have generally stated that the Principal of the College has not been conducting himself with the dignity of a teacher and that his behaviour towards female students, in general, has not been respectable. A few of them, however, have stated that the Principal is a teacher of exceptional merit and has been fair to all students, whether male or female, and his actions towards female students were fair and respectable. The Principal, however, has since been relieved of his post and has been transferred to the teaching faculty as a Professor in Entomology and in his place a new Professor has assumed charge. (4) Ms. Anuradha has received satisfactory medical aid and has been recuperating, though slowly but definitely improving. Injuries on her, however, have been very serious and serious and they have caused loss of some limbs (ear lobes, damage to her one eye and disfigurement of face and some other parts of body). While some, according to the experts, are repairable, quite a few of them are irreparable and the loss thus caused by the injuries are vital and final. Since recuperation, however, is slow, she will need hospitalisation for long duration and treatment even for longer periods ranging from six months to one year.
4. We do not propose to express ourselves how Srinivas Reddy be dealt with as the matter has reached for his prosecution in a Court of law and any opinion expressed by us may cause prejudice either to the prosecution or the defence. We also do not propose to express our opinion, on the basis of the materials made available to us in the shape of the report of the Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the University and that of Smt. Annapurna Devi, learned Advocate, on the role of the Principal and his conduct, otherwise being allegedly objectionable, for in the event of a regular departmental proceeding any observation or expression of opinion by us may cause prejudice either to his defence or to the proceeding for a proper appreciation of the misdemeanour or misconduct as alleged by the students against him. On treatment given to Ms. Anuradha, the second petitioner, since experts have found there is no better course, no further directions or observations are required except to reiterate that the State and the University have to take responsibility and ensure that there is no let or negligence in providing best possible medical attention to her and for which, as respect to other matters before us in respect of treatment to her, we propose to give some directions, since there has been no competing contentions at the Bar and all parties have shown eagerness that justice should be done, (1) in prosecution of N. Srinivas Reddy by a fair and impartial trial and prosecution properly represented and conducted; (2) by an enquiry into the conduct of the Principal of the College by an agency nominated by the Court in accordance with the regulations of the University; and (3) by suitable orders and directions for the treatment and rehabilitation of the second petitioner-Ms. Anuradha. We are spared of deciding any issue or contention, yet it is indeed, in our view, necessary to observe that a College or University Campus is a sacred place of learning; teachers and more particularly Principal of a College enjoy almost parental status for the students and since all subjects of education are primary disciplines; so, discipline in the conduct of the students is the most vital and important aspect of University and College atmosphere. Anything that vitiates the atmosphere of learning and the discipline for which the educational institutions are created has to be evoked and any one, vitiating or providing cause to vitiate such atmosphere, is not fit to be one in either the group of teachers or officers of the University or the College or the group of students of the University or the College. The second petitioner has entered the College to pursue her studies only to find herself injured both mentally and physically by a fellow student and if allegations are true, a teacher occupying the position of Principal of the College and other persons, who are required to ensure discipline, have failed not only (in respect of) her but the institution as well. The occurrence is not just an ordinary act of violence, but has the characterstics of a sin committed against the society at large and has to be viewed not as a solitary incident but as a cause of alarm that more incidents of this nature . may occur if steps are not taken to maintain proper discipline in the College and University Campus. On facts already admitted, it is a case of a girl student facing disgrace, physical injuries and sufferings on account of discontinuance of studies, all combined only because one student of the opposite sex acted in irresponsible manner which could have been prevented had the Principal and others, teachers and officers of the College and the University taken notice of the warnings which were more than obvious in several representations by the students and in several reports in this behalf already furnished to them. We are satisfied that Ms. Anuradha to be compensated for the loss of her studies, for the disfigurement and for mental agony she has already suffered and which she undoubtedly would suffer for the whole of the remaining life. The role of the Principal and other teachers and officers of the College and the University has to be enquired into atleast to find out whether they have failed and why they have failed and if some one has indulged in any misdemeanour, touching misconduct, to deal suitably with him or her and for necessary corrections, if required, by laying down firm rules of conduct of all concern since N. Srinivas Reddy has already been booked for the alleged offence. We have good reasons to think the Court shall deal with his case strictly in accordance with law. Thus we can conclude and hold that the case can be disposed of with the following directions:
(1) The State of Andhra Pradesh shall provide to the second petitioner-Ms. Anuradha full and complete treatment for the burn injuries suffered by her, including surgery and plastic surgery for repair of the damages, in particular, including all costs and expenses on treatment, hospitalisation and transport etc. In course of the treatment and for all the above, give exclusive expert treatment in the Government hospitals as well as in other hospitals where best treatment for the wounds suffered by her is available. The State shall meet all expenses of her lodging and feeding in hospitals and/or nursing homes and/or any other place where she is permitted to stay by the attending physicians/surgeons.
(2) The University shall permit the second petitioner to appear in the examinations without her complying with the necessary conditions of attendance of classes etc., and make such arrangements for her writing the examinations which attending physicians/surgeons would recommend. On her completing the studies, if any further she would desire to study, the University would admit her to the course/ courses of study of her choice without insisting for any entrance examination and/or fulfilment of the merit for the purpose of selection etc. In case, on the basis of her qualifications already acquired, she decides to go for a job or service and befitting her qualifications there is any job in the University, the University shall give to her the job and shall, for the said purpose, relax all conditions of recruitment.
(3) The State Government shall appoint a Special Prosecutor and entrust the case to him for prosecuting N. Srinivas Reddy and ensure that Ms. Anuradha and other witnesses are provided full protection and are given necessary batta etc., on time as and when they are required to depose in the case.
(4) The University shall issue necessary notification/order with respect to the appointment of a retired Judge of the High Court duly nominated by the Chief Justice for enquiry into the allegations against the Principal-second respondent and other persons who have allegedly indulged in misconducts as per the statements in the report of Smt. Annapurna Devi, Advocate. The enquiry in this behalf shall be completed within a period of two months.
5. Without any demeanour one has to accept that injured Ms. Anuradha (second petitioner) has suffered irreparable injuries, both physical and mental and provisions aforementioned can hardly be taken to be adequate compensation. She is entitled to be compensated yet. How can she be compensated for such a loss while she may under the common law, enjoy the right to sue for compensation the person who has caused injury as well as those who have failed to protect her, it is indeed, in our view, a case in which, even if not found deliberately, the University and the State have to be held to be liable to compensate. We are not entering into the niceties to find out whether she will be deemed to be a victim of any act of the State or its agents or servants. We are also not similarly entering into the niceties to find out whether she has been the victim of any act of the University or its agents or servants. We have, however, no doubt that any vitiating atmosphere in a College or University will bring the blame upon the College or the University and any vitiating atmosphere in the State shall bring the blame upon the State. The State’s role does not come to an end only by prosecuting the accused. It has a duty also to realise such amount of compensation from the person who has caused irreparable damage to the victim. That, however, shall be in due course of law. This Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall prompt it to remind itself to its duty to see that the victim is compensated not until it seeks the relief in due course of law, but before it is too late. We are inclined, for the said reason, to direct the State Government to pay to Ms. Anuradha a sum quantified, subject to her right to sue for further compensation, at Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to her within two months by way of Fixed Deposit frozen for a period of three years for her benefit, after which period she may withdraw the same. This, however, is subject to the right of the State to claim the compensation from the accused and if finally the University or the College is found negligent, from the University or the College and if Principal is found personally attributing to the crime by not taking appropriate action at the appropriate time from the Principal (second respondent).
6. The application is accordingly ordered as above. Before we part, we record our appreciation to the learned counsel Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, who has appeared for the petitioners as Amicus Curiae, learned Advocate General who has given to the Court full assistance as and when required and has been substantially helpful in ensuring proper and adequate treatment for the second petitioner-Ms. Anuradha, learned counsel for the University Sri B. Siva Reddy and learned counsel for the Principal – second respondent Sri N. Ramamohan Rao who, without in any manner conceding the interest of their respective clients, have been fair in giving assistance to the Court.