The repeated arrests of Mahbubul Hoque, Chancellor of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), in early 2025 reflect a glaring pattern of procedural abuse, jurisdictional overreach, and politically motivated harassment, rather than a legitimate legal process. While the allegations against Hoque— primarily centered on unproven claims of exam fraud at a CBSE-affiliated school in Assam— remain conspicuously unsupported by publicly disclosed evidence, the actions of Assam authorities violate fundamental legal principles, including due process, presumption of innocence, and protection against double jeopardy.
1. Procedural Irregularities and Abuse of Process:
Hoque’s arrests follow a troubling pattern of legal arbitrariness. After his initial arrest on February 21, 2025, the Gauhati High Court granted him bail on March 3 in one case, only for Assam Police to keep him detained under a second FIR from Sribhumi. When the High Court granted bail in the second case on March 12 and explicitly barred his arrest in three additional FIRs, Sonitpur Police circumvented the court’s order by filing a new case on March 14, ensuring his continued custody. This cycle of “arrest-on-bail” demonstrates a deliberate strategy to weaponize the legal system. Legal experts argue that such serial FIRs, filed across disparate districts (Gossaigaon, Kokrajhar, Barpeta, Sonitpur), constitute a blatant misuse of power to harass rather than investigate.
2. Politically Charged Rhetoric Undermines Rule of Law:
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s inflammatory rhetoric—including baseless accusations of “flood jihad” and calling Hoque a “big fraud”— has irreparably prejudiced the legal process. Sarma’s unsubstantiated claim that USTM’s construction caused flash floods in Guwahati is not only scientifically absurd but also emblematic of a broader campaign to vilify Hoque and delegitimize USTM, a Meghalaya-based institution. His threats to bar USTM graduates from Assam government jobs further expose a retaliatory agenda, conflating governance with vendetta. Such statements, made by a sitting CM, violate the rules of propriety and principles of judicial independence, effectively turning state machinery into a tool of political persecution.
3. Lack of Evidence & Jurisdictional Overreach:
Authorities have failed to produce credible evidence linking Hoque directly to exam malpractices. The allegations hinge on vague claims of “financial corruption” and student coercion, yet no forensic audit, paper leaks, or student testimonies have been disclosed. Meanwhile, the jurisdictional validity of Assam’s actions is questionable: the Central Public School in Patharkandi is part of Hoque’s ERDF network, which operates across multiple states. By contrast, Meghalaya CM Conrad Sangma has reaffirmed USTM’s legitimacy, noting its NAAC accreditation and recognition by the UGC, underscoring Assam’s overreach into educational matters beyond its purview.
4. Systemic Violation of Constitutional Safeguards:
The rapid filing of FIRs across districts mirrors tactics of “forum shopping” to deny Hoque access to a fair trial, infringing on Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to liberty) of the Indian Constitution. Legal scholars emphasize that bail should be the norm, not the exception, in cases lacking concrete evidence. Hoque’s prolonged detention without trial—coupled with the Assam government’s refusal to comply with High Court restraints—signals a collapse of constitutional governance.
5. Interstate Political Tensions:
The stark contrast between Assam’s punitive actions and Meghalaya’s defense of USTM highlights the arrest campaign’s politicized nature. Sarma’s targeting of Hoque aligns with longstanding tensions between Assam and Meghalaya over territorial and administrative autonomy, reducing law enforcement to a tool of regional rivalry.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent:
The persecution of Mahbubul Hoque represents a flagrant assault on judicial integrity and educational autonomy. Rather than upholding justice, Assam’s actions reflect a politically orchestrated effort to silence a prominent minority educator and undermine a neighboring state’s institution. Civil society, legal bodies, and national authorities must condemn this abuse of power, demand immediate transparency in investigations, and reaffirm the constitutional rights shielding citizens from state-sponsored harassment. Until credible evidence is presented, Hoque’s detention must be recognized for what it is: arbitrary, illegal, and a threat to democracy itself
No comments:
Post a Comment