Gauhati HC Sets Aside Disciplinary Action Against Law Students For Protesting At College Event, Asks Them To Apologise & Pay 10K Costs
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside two notices issued by Tezpur Law College's Principal-in-Charge initiating disciplinary action against a law student, on the condition that he shall tender a written apology to the Principal publishing it in two widely circulated newspapers in the locality and also pay cost of Rs.10,000.
Justice Robin Phukan in his December 20 order observed:
“…….the respondent No.1/petitioner has to tender written apology to the applicant/respondent No.9 and shall publish the same in two widely circulated newspapers in that locality, one in English and the other in vernacular, and also he has to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) being the cost, which shall be deposited in the Student Welfare Fund of the Tezpur Law College and if such fund is not available, then the same shall be deposited in the office of the District Legal Services Authority, Tezpur, within a period of 1(one) month from today.”
As per the facts Tezpur Law College had on August 31 organized a programme in connection with freshmen social of the college. In the function, the petitioner (law student), along with a group of students, allegedly entered onto the stage and started protesting against the college authorities. Accordingly, the college authorities had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on September 2.
The petitioner student had responded to the show cause notice on September 5; however finding his reply unsatisfactory, the respondent No.9–the Principal-In-Charge of Tezpur Law College had initiated disciplinary action on September 9 whereby the petitioner's entry to attend classes of the LLB 5th semester was restricted.
Additionally the petitioner's entry to appear for any Internal Assessment Examination including Sessional Examination, Seminar & Vivavoce of LL.B. 5th semester, entry to attend any programme, functions, event and festival held in the college premises for LL.B. 5th semester, entry to appear for the End Semester Examination for the current semester was also restricted.
As these restrictions were not followed by the petitioner, another Notice was issued on September 23 and was served upon the petitioner to strictly follow the restrictions imposed upon him in the September 7 notice. Against these notices the petitioner had approached the high court.
It was the contention of the petitioner that he had given his reply on September 5 however without him affording any opportunity of hearing the disciplinary actions were taken against him.
It was further submitted that Tezpur Law College is following the Rules of Residents, Health and Discipline Board of the Gauhati University in letter and spirit. However, it was contended that the process leading to the disciplinary actions against the petitioner has been done in total violation of the said rules.
As on interim measure the high court had on November 5 had stayed the disciplinary action pertaining to restrictions on the petitioner's entry to attend classes of the LLB 5th semester, to appear for any Internal Assessment Examination including Sessional Examination, Seminar & Vivavoce and restriction on his entry to appear for the End Semester Examination of LL.B. 5th semester. Against this interim relief the Principal had filed an application seeking vacation of stay.
K N Choudhury, Senior Advocate appearing for the Principal-in-Charge of the Tezpur Law College (respondent no. 9) submitted that Tezpur Law College is a private institution and as such it is not a state as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked against a private institution.
On the other hand, Advocate P R Sarma appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the College is a private law college, the same is affiliated to Gauhati University and it is also a state, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, the petition is maintainable.
It was further argued that the petitioner is innocent and with the intervention of this Court, vide order dated November 05, 2024, he had appeared in the LL.B. Examination and if the restriction imposed upon the petitioner is materialized, then it will ruin his career.
On a query raised by the Court to the Senior Counsel on giving concession to the petitioner, it was stated that the applicant/respondent No.9 is ready to give concession to the petitioner, but, he has to tender unconditional apology to the college authority and also to publish the same in two widely circulated local newspapers, one in English and another in vernacular, and also he has to pay some costs.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to tender unconditional apology and to publishing the same in two newspapers and also ready to pay some costs. However, it was argued that the cost should be nominal as the petitioner is student and he is dependent upon the income of his father.
After considering the submissions of both the parties and as agreed upon, the Court said:
"Having considered the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Notice dated 07.09.2024, vide Ref. No.TLC/NB/2024/8730, as well as the impugned Notice, dated 23.09.2024, vide Ref. No.TLC/Notice/2024/8797".
The Court directed the petitioner to tender written apology to the Principal and shall publish the same in two widely circulated newspapers as mentioned above.
“While fixing the quantum of cost, this Court has taken note of the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties and also taken note of the background facts leading to initiation of the disciplinary action against the respondent No.1/petitioner. And taking note of the all the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the quantum of cost must have some deterrent effect and the same is required to maintain discipline amongst the unruly students. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be justified and reasonable amount of cost herein this case,” the Court said.
The Court directed the petitioner to comply with the above-mentioned directions within a period of two moths, failing which, the restrictions imposed upon him, vide impugned Notices shall automatically stands restored, after two months.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 100
Case No: I.A.(Civil)/3669/2024 in WP(C)/5662/2024
Case Title: The Principal, Tezpur Law College v. Paramananda Saikia & Ors.