HC quashes IIM Nagpur student's suspension, orders fresh hearing within four weeks

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the suspension of an MBA student of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Nagpur, holding that he was never given a fair chance to answer the charge against him. The court also ordered the institute to let him attend classes and live in the hostel while the matter is examined again.

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode passed the order on a petition by Prayas Thakur, a second-year student of the 2025-27 MBA batch. The judges set aside the suspension order issued by the institute's director on October 3, 2026. They also cancelled the earlier decisions of the Student Activity Committee and the Academic Programme and Grievance Redressal Committee, saying the principles of natural justice had been ignored.

The dispute goes back to August 30, 2026. According to the petition, officials from the student activities office searched Thakur's hostel room at about 2.40 pm while he was in class. The room is shared with two other classmates. Neither Thakur nor any representative of the student council was present during the search.

It was alleged that a banned substance had been found under the pillow on his bed. Thakur told the court that he was never told what the substance was, what it contained or how much of it there was, and that no laboratory report was given to him. The material on record, the bench noted, did not establish these points, yet he was held guilty.

The chairperson of the Student Activity Committee then expelled him from the programme without issuing a show-cause notice. His first appeal went to the Academic Programme and Grievance Redressal Committee, which upheld the action. On the second appeal, the director softened the punishment to suspension for terms 5 and 6 of the 2026-27 academic year. Thakur argued that his academic record was spotless and that he did not get a proper hearing before the committee or the appellate authorities.

Advocate Radhika Bajaj, appearing for the student, argued that the institute had not followed a fair procedure. Harish Thakur, counsel for IIM Nagpur, defended the earlier orders but conceded that a fresh inquiry could be held once the student had been heard properly.

After hearing lengthy arguments from both sides, the bench found that the student had not been given sufficient opportunity to present his side and quashed the three orders on that ground. As an interim direction, it told the institute to allow Thakur to attend classes and stay in the hostel immediately.

The matter has been sent back to the chairperson of the Student Activity Committee. The chairperson must give the student a full opportunity to lead evidence and put forward his defence, examine the material, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks. The bench made it clear that the committee can decide only after hearing him. Until then, Thakur will continue to attend classes and stay in the hostel.