Ambitious Parents Illegally Securing Admission Of Wards To Good Colleges Foster Dishonesty, Deprive Deserving Candidates: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has observed that ambitious parents who illegally secure their child's admission to colleges commit a crime and deprive deserving candidates of opportunities.

While quashing a case under Section 138 of the NI Act and observing that it cannot be used in cases involving illegal transactions, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra was taken aback by the fact that the complainant despite working in the police department did an act that contradicts the very ethos of society. He observed: 

“Ambitious parents indulging in the illegal methods to secure admission of their wards to a good college at the cost of meritocracy and fairness in education, is indeed a crime. Such actions not only deprive deserving candidates of their rightful opportunities but also foster an environment of dishonesty and corruption, ultimately harming the future of education and society at large." 

Justice Mishra further lamented the regressive approach often adopted by the parents in Indian society where they impose certain career choices upon their children.

He criticised the shortcut/illegal routes taken by parents to facilitate the education of their children in government/reputed educational institutions, which not only deprive deserving candidates of their rightful opportunities but also create an environment of dishonesty and corruption.

“Parents must evolve beyond a regressive mind-set that imposes career choices upon their children, driven by unfulfilled personal aspirations. While it is natural for parents to dream of a successful future for their children, such aspirations must be nurtured through ethical means rather than unlawful shortcuts. Parents must act as facilitators in their child's educational and career journey—offering guidance and motivation while respecting their individuality. They should aid, but not dictate the decision-making process, support their child's choices, provide them with the freedom to explore their skills and encourage them to develop and achieve through merit and perseverance,” he said.

Case Background

The complaint (Opposite Party No. 2 herein) alleged that on the basis of the assurance given by the son of the petitioner to facilitate admission of her son in a Government Medical College, she had given cash to the son of the petitioner. However, the son of the petitioner could not arrange the seat in the said Government Medical College for her son, as promised by him.

Therefore, a criminal case was initiated against the son of the petitioner for various offences, which is pending for trial. At this juncture, the complainant demanded the money back from the son of the petitioner. To discharge the said liability, the petitioner issued two cheques from her account in favour of the complainant.

On being presented in the bank, the said cheques issued by the petitioner got dishonoured. The statutory demand notice was issued by the complainant to the petitioner. Since the demand notice was not responded, a complaint case was initiated. Being aggrieved by the registration of complaint case, the petitioner approched the High Court seeking to quash the same.