Case Details

  • Case Name: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.18465/2026
  • Parties: Banaras Hindu University & ORS (Petitioner) vs Dipanwita Singh Roy & ORS (Respondent)
  • Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India
  • Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
  • Order/Decision Date: 25-05-2026 (hearing date)
  • Impugned Order: Final judgment and order dated 16-02-2026 in SA No.219/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
  • IA No.160128/2026: Exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment
  • IA No.160126/2026: Permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures

Parties Involved

  • Petitioner: Banaras Hindu University (BHU) and other associated parties
  • Respondent: Dipanwita Singh Roy and other associated parties
  • Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General), Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv. Himesh Thakur, Adv. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Syed Fazl Askari, Adv. Savi Garga, Adv. Tenzen Tashi Negi (Advocates-on-Record)
  • Respondent Counsel: Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Vinayak Mohan, Adv. Kedar Nath Tripathy (Advocate-on-Record)
  • Notice Acceptance: Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate-on-Record for the respondent

Issues / Allegations / Violations

1. Emergency Powers Invocation: High Court held that the Vice‑Chancellor had no necessity to invoke emergency powers under Section 7C(5) of the Banaras Hindu University Act.

2. Expertise Requirement: Selection Committee was required to have three experts with special knowledge in the subject; the subject was Dance (Kathak) but the expert nominated did not possess Kathak expertise.

3. Bias in Committee Composition: An expert nominated by the Vice‑Chancellor was one of the candidates forwarded by the second respondent, creating a rule‑against‑bias situation.

4. Petitioner Submissions: Argues that emergency powers were not warranted, the subject code was generic (Dance) without specifying Kathak, and the Policy and Planning Committee’s composition (as per Statute 11 A(3)) justified the presence of the second respondent.

5. Timeline of Objections: Petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 04‑01‑2024 without raising any objection; a representation regarding committee composition was filed only on 01‑03‑2024.

Findings & Observations

  • The Supreme Court considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the High Court’s grounds for setting aside the selection process required further examination.
  • No definitive finding on the merits was rendered; instead, the Court opted to stay the operative effect of the impugned order pending a detailed hearing.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • The effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shall remain stayed.
  • The Court issued notice to the parties.
  • The matter was listed for further hearing on 29‑07‑2026.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • Parties must comply with the stay order; the High Court’s decision cannot be implemented until the Supreme Court’s final determination.
  • Both parties are required to appear on the listed date for further arguments and resolution.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s impugned order, effectively preserving the status quo.
  • Notice was issued, and the case was scheduled for a subsequent hearing on 29 July 2026, where the Court will consider the substantive issues raised.