Students Should Be Given Opportunity To Reform, Instead Of Punitive Punishment: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that purely punitive actions should not be taken by universities against students. Students are young adults who must be given an opportunity of reformation, it said. “Purely punitive action was taken by the University against the petitioner, to the exclusion of opportunities to reform his conduct, explore possibilities of excellence and redeem his...
The Allahabad High Court has held that purely punitive actions should not be taken by universities against students. Students are young adults who must be given an opportunity of reformation, it said.
“Purely punitive action was taken by the University against the petitioner, to the exclusion of opportunities to reform his conduct, explore possibilities of excellence and redeem his reputation. In matters pertaining to errant behavior by students such approach may make the action vulnerable to judicial review on grounds of disproportionality,” held Justice Ajay Bhanot.
Petitioner, a student of B.Tech (CSE) was charged for various acts of indiscipline including conduct which involves moral turpitude, corruption/bribing, causing disruption of the academic functioning of the university and related to tests and examinations. Initially, he was rusticated for a period of six months, which was reduced to three months in appeal.
Counsel for Petitioner alleged that charges levelled against the petitioner were vague and general in nature and no material was placed on record to justify the rustication. Further, it was argued that the punishment was disproportionate. Additionally, the charge sheet was never served upon the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Counsel for Respondent contented that the punishment was awarded after due inquiry. Since the charges were grave in nature, the punishment of rustication was justified.
The Court observed that the respondent university was unable to refute the claim of violation of principles of natural justice. The adverse material on record could not prove the charges against the petitioner. “The prejudice caused to the petitioner by the said procedure followed by the respondents is beyond recall”, said the Court.
Justice Bhanot held,
“The scheme of punitive action in an institution of higher learning is an indispensable feature of its administration. The penal regime in a system has to amalgamate essential elements to maintain discipline in the University which is conducive to its academic atmosphere and a reformative approach which is critical to transformation of the students. The key to an effective system of disciplinary action is the balance between deterrent effect and reformative possibilities.”
Relying on its earlier judgment in Anant Narayan Mishra v. Union of India, the Court held that students should not be subjected solely to punitive action. Punishment, if any, must include a reformative approach.
While allowing the petition of the student and setting aside the punishment, the Court held that students are young adults, who must be given an opportunity to correct errors, if any, and start a new life on a clean slate.
“Disproportionality vitiates punitive action,” said the Court.
The court also allowed the prayer for the issuance of a fresh marks sheet reflecting the evaluation of the petitioner's performance out of 100 marks, and to delete the endorsement marks "Reappearance September 2020" and to remove the B Cap on the marks secured by the petitioner.
Case Title: Prakhar Nagar vs. State of UP & 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 244 [Writ C No. 21339/2020]
Case Citaiton: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Counsel for Petitioner: Siddharth Khare, Jigar Khare
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Rahul Chaudhary, Rahul Chaubey