Aligarh Muslim University has denied PhD admission to a student over his alleged involvement in a protest, after the university debarred him without issuing a show-cause notice.
Paras Mohammad, a resident of Pali Razapur, Aligarh, has filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of his expulsion order, which he describes as “arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
Mohammad completed his Bachelor of Arts in History in 2021 and his Master of Arts in History in 2024 from AMU.
On April 21, 2025, Mohammad appeared before the Presentation-cum-Interview Centre at AMU for admission to the Ph.D. programme in History for the academic session 2024–2025. But he was denied the opportunity to participate and was instead asked by the authorities to approach the Vice Chancellor’s office.
When the petitioner approached the Vice Chancellor’s office, the VC refused to meet with him.
The FIR filed by the university’s security officer alleged that they entered the administrative block, forcibly blocked access to the chambers of other officials, and caused unrest when the Vice Chancellor was heading to his residence.
On the same day, Proctor Aligarh Muslim University debarred Paras from seeking admission to any course of study at the university or its maintained institutions for the next five academic sessions, starting from 2025–26.
He also alleged that the expulsions were carried out without issuing a show-cause notice and without verifying the truth of the allegations, jeopardising the future of Paras Mohammad, an academically and extracurricularly active student.
Mohammad, who had represented the country at the 2024 United World Wrestling Grappling Championship in Astana, securing the 16th rank, and is preparing for several upcoming international wrestling competitions, fears that the FIR could hinder his career as a wrestler as well.
He has filed an appeal under Section 36-B of the AMU Act, 1920, asserting that he has been falsely accused and requesting access to the CCTV footage and any other evidence supporting the charges against him.
However, the Vice Chancellor did not address the appeal. The petition filed at the High Court emphasised that no disciplinary Committee was constituted to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to defend himself.
“That without constituting a disciplinary committee and not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend himself is clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice,” said the petition.
Further, it argued it is only upon the sole decision of the proctor that the petitioner was debarred/ expelled from the university for five academic sessions without application of mind.
The complaint further alleges that the petitioner was mistreated by the Proctor, Mohd Wasim Ali, during his pursuit of the M.A. degree, and no action was taken despite repeated oral complaints from the petitioner and other students to the Vice-Chancellor about his conduct.
They alleged that the Proctor had threatened to falsely implicate them in criminal cases.
“The proctor has falsely implicated the petitioner illegally and unjustly by misusing his powers only to settle his past score with the petitioner,” said the petition.
Mohammad highlighted that he was neither provided with the video recording of the CCTV footage of the incident nor given any statements from students, university officials, or other individuals, or any other evidence showing his involvement in the protest, thus denying him the opportunity to defend himself.
He alleged that the charge against him was deemed to be proven solely based on an FIR lodged by the security officer in charge of the university, highlighting that at the time the impugned order was passed, no FIR had been filed against him.
The FIR was only filed after the order was issued, which the petition claims is “illegal, unjust, and contrary to law.”
The petition, which named the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Proctor, and Controller of Examinations of Aligarh Muslim University as respondents, further alleged that the order clearly shows the Proctor treated mere allegations as evidence of misconduct and, without verifying their genuineness, imposed a severe punishment solely based on the nature of the campus incidents that day.
“The petitioner was treated unfairly by being expelled from the University for five academic sessions, and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate and highly illegal,” read the petition.
The petition asserted that while the allegations against the petitioner are serious, the punishment imposed is unduly harsh and carries far-reaching consequences, depriving him of educational opportunities and casting a stigma that adversely affects and obstructs his future career.
The petition, filed through Advocates Osama Qamar Siddiqui, Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui, and Azizullah Khan, urged the Court to quash the impugned order of expulsion issued by the Proctor.
