LAHORE: The Punjab University (PU) on Tuesday submitted its reply to the Lahore High Court defending disciplinary action taken against a Baloch female student of law declaring her a `miscreant student.

Sadia Baloch was suspended for addressing a students` rally on the campus to raise an issue of disappeared Baloch students.

The PU reply claims that the students` gathering had been organised without seeking permission and in violation of an undertaking which the petitioner/student had submitted at the time of admission to LLB.

The university also claims that stu-dents are prohibited from participating in any kind of `political activity` due to a Supreme Court verdict.

It also furnished a USB containing Sadia Baloch`s speech.

Advocate Asad Jamal, the counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the reply submitted by the university did not even remotely address the legal and constitutional issues raised regarding the competence of the vice chancellor and other respondents to issue the notification under challenge.

He also drew the attention of the court that the alleged speech which the PU submitted along with the comments was not relevant and pertained to a factual inquiry beyond the scope of the proceedings before the court.

Justice Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom expressed his lack of knowledge about the USB informing the university`s counsel that the court was not interested in the speech of the petitioner.

Thejudge observed thatthe legalandconstitutional contentions raised in the petition had not been responded to in the reply filed by the respondent.

Advocate Sardar Tariq Mehmood, the counsel for the PU, stated that the petitioner had been given due opportunities and asked to apologise for her conduct but she failed to avail the opportunities.

The petitioner`s counsel pointed out that the impugned notification had been challenged on the touchstone of law and the Constitution, and the petitioner had not been provided anything in writing to respond which was a violation of right to due process and fairness.

The university`s counsel also raised the issue of maintainability and referred to a Supreme Court verdict.

The petitioner`s counsel responded that the judgement did not affect the case of the petitioner. The PU counsel responded in negative when asked if the ground of maintainability had been taken in the written reply.

The judge expressed dissatisfactionwith the manner in which the university filed the reply and directed its counsel to submit an amended reply by March 5.

The PU administration withheld the results of Sadia Baloch`s third year`s final exams.

She challenged the university`s decision tal(en by the vice chancellor as a result of which she was barred from sitting exams held in August 2024.

Following an order by the LHC on Aug 19, she was allowed to appear in the exams, however, her result stands withheld by the university.

In its reply, the PU asks the court to declare that the issuance of the results hinges solely on the petitioner`s acknowledgement of the inappropriateness of her actions.

It also urges the court to recognise the `parental approach` of the disciplinary committee in dealing the matter of the petitioner and allow the university to continue its internal process.