LHC sets aside BZU decision to suspend admission of Ahmadi

Author: Agencies

The Lahore High Court on Friday set aside Bahauddin Zakariya University’s (BZU) order to suspend the admission of a student belonging to the Ahmadi community, terming the varsity’s move as “persecution”, a private TV channel reported.

Umer Taimur Tahir was enrolled in the Pharm-D programme on a minority quota at the BZU in September. However, the university had on Oct 11 suspended his admission without informing him, according to the court order, and without giving reasons for doing so. The university had also claimed at the time that the matter was being contested in the LHC, a claim that was “gratuitous, unwarranted and untrue”, according to the court.

The student, in a petition with the high court, had challenged the varsity’s move to supsend his admission, saying he was “treated as an object and not a human being”. “Some event which is not discernible from the record and about which the petitioner has no information or knowledge allegedly took place by virtue of which his admission has been suspended without informing him, without hearing him, without providing any reason for the same,” Tahir’s petition read.

In his order, Justice Shan Gul noted that the student’s suspension “amounts to persecuting the already persecuted!” He said the varsity’s decision depicted scant regard for students along with “a conscious disregard for minority rights”.

The court also ordered the vice-chancellor to inquire into the matter and find out why the petitioner had been singled out “for such callous and insensitive treatment”.

Justice Gul pointed out that Article 36 of the Constitution provided for safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of minorities. “Even this right contained in Article 22 and the principle of the policy contained in Article 36 of the Constitution clearly protect the petitioner from such attacks,” the judge remarked.

The court ordered that the student’s petition, along with the copy of the court order, should be sent to the vice-chancellor “so he could take a paternalistic view in the matter and ensure that the petitioner is not dealt a marked hand.”