While Institutes Have Autonomy To Maintain Discipline, They Cannot Be Allowed To Mete Out Injustice To Students: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

While coming to the rescue of a rusticated student, the Delhi High Court recently advised institutes to be fair in punishing its students, emphasizing on the fact that such punishments must also help in making them better individuals.

"Thus in any view, while giving autonomy to the institute to maintain its standards and ensure disciplined behavior by the students, injustice cannot be allowed to be meted out to the student. The institution is also expected to treat the student fairly and the process by which it imposes penalties on the student should take into consideration all the relevant factors, including the nature of alleged act of indiscipline and misconduct," Justice Rekha Palli observed.

The Court was hearing a Petition filed by a 3rd year B.Tech student Mr. Ravi Kumar, who had been rusticated in November last year and had been directed to complete his degree in five years instead of four. The order passed by the Board of Discipline of the Delhi Technological University had also prohibited Mr. Kumar's entry into the campus after he injured the son of one of the faculty members in a bike accident.

Challenging this order, he had now contended that his rustication was "wholly unwarranted and the same will leave a permanent scar on his career". He had submitted that the incident was an accident and hence, it cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline. He had also alleged that he was being "victimized" only because the injured child was the son of a faculty member.

The College, on the other hand, had contended that the Court should not interfere in disciplinary matters involving students and that such functions should be left for the institute to discharge.

At the outset, the Court noted that Mr. Kumar was riding a motor bike with an expired driving license at a speed above the prescribed speed limit of 20 km/hr within the campus. Noting that this hasn't been disputed in the Petition, it then went on to consider whether the punishment of rustication was proportionate to the act.

The Court opined that the proportionality of the punishment would need to be considered in view of the circumstances at hand and observed, "In my considered opinion, the duty of the Institute is to nurture its students, who join the Institute as young teenagers at the age of 17-18 years and every attempt must be made to help them blossom as responsible adults. No doubt, this responsibility would give the power and right to discipline them but the moot question would be whether, under the garb of discipline, such a penalty be meted out to them so as to harm their future, even when the Institute is conscious of the fact that the act of the student, though faulty, was unintentional."

The Court then noted that the punishment seemed to have been a result of the anger of the injured child's parent, who happened to be an Assistant Professor. It observed, "Was it not the duty of the Board of Directors to consider the matter from the aspect of not merely punishing the young student but also from the angle of improving him. Another aspect which I find disturbing in the present case is that despite the petitioner attempting to tell the Board of Directors in no unclear terms that the incident was an unfortunate accident, an attempt has been made to paint the whole incident as an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline. The attempt to refer to some previous incidents in which he was involved with a group of students as being gross acts of indiscipline, even though he was merely warned, for those incidents also shows that the approach of the Institute was not fair."

The Court, therefore, found the penalty to be "shockingly disproportionate" and cut short the order of rustication to the period already undergone by him. The order of him being put on probation during his academic year was, however, sustained. He was also barred from entering the hostel and residential parts of the campus and was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Students Welfare Fund of the Institute.