Deemed Universities Must Prioritize Reformation in Student Discipline, Uphold Natural Justice & UGC Guidelines: Bombay HC (Goa Bench) directs BITS Goa - 2024-01-15

Law, Judgments & Legal Insights.

BITS Goa Directed to Prioritize Reformation Over Punitiveness in Student Discipline, Semester Cancellation Quashed by High Court

Goa: The High Court has significantly intervened in a student disciplinary matter, quashing the cancellation of a semester for two BITS Pilani, Goa Campus students and emphasizing the paramount importance of a reformative approach over purely punitive measures by educational institutions. The Court, in a judgment disposing of two writ petitions, criticized the institute's Director for an overly rigid stance and disregard for University Grants Commission ( UGC ) guidelines on student welfare and reform.

The students had their registrations for Semester I (2023-24) cancelled and were fined Rs. 50,000 each for alleged involvement in the theft of items like potato chips, chocolates, and electronic gadgets from stalls during a campus conference.

Case Background

The petitioners, students of Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, K.K. Birla Goa Campus, challenged orders dated 01.12.2023 which upheld the cancellation of their Semester I registration and a fine of Rs. 50,000. Initially, on 18.11.2023, the petitioners and three other students faced debarment for the current semester and two/three further semesters. However, the appellate authority (the Director) dropped the semester cancellation for three students, maintaining only the fine, but upheld it for the petitioners. With exams looming, the students approached the High Court, which granted interim relief allowing them to sit for their exams.

Key Arguments

Petitioners' Counsel, Mr. Parag Rao, argued: * The punishment was disproportionate and discriminatory, especially when compared to three other students involved in the same incident whose semester cancellations were revoked. * There was a violation of natural justice as the complaint was never shown to the petitioners, and no clear reasons were provided for distinguishing their case. * The Institute acted contrary to its own disciplinary guidelines, which prescribed a lesser penalty for a first-time Category 2 offense like theft. * The Institute, a deemed university, ignored mandatory UGC guidelines emphasizing reformative and rehabilitative measures for students. * The writ petition was maintainable against a deemed university performing a public function, citing Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University .

Respondents' Counsel, Mr. P. Faldessai, contended: * The students' actions amounted to serious misconduct that defamed the Institute. * The Director had discretion to impose suitable penalties beyond the illustrative cases in the guidelines. * The writ petition was not maintainable as BITS was not "State" under Article 12, no public law element was involved, and an alternate remedy (Ombudsman) existed. * As an "Institution of Eminence," BITS was not strictly bound by all UGC regulations. * Courts should be reluctant to interfere in the internal disciplinary affairs of universities. * The Director believed reducing punishment would encourage students to seek court intervention, undermining the institute's disciplinary system.

Court's Observations and Reasoning

The Court expressed strong disapproval of the Director's approach, noting:

"Despite our above order dated 09.01.2024 and interrupting the final hearing on two occasions, the Director took great pride in informing us that no mercy could be shown to the two 18-year-old petitioners, who admittedly had no history of any delinquency."

The Court highlighted the Director's apprehension that court intervention would undermine the institute's disciplinary system as an improper consideration:

"To say the least, this should not have been the approach of the Director, particularly when dealing with two 18-year-old students from his Institute... We almost got the impression that the Director was irked by the fact that these two petitioners had dared to seek Court intervention against his decision."

UGC Guidelines and Reformative Justice: The Court heavily emphasized UGC guidelines which advocate for HEIs to avoid punitive measures where possible and focus on reform through counselling and self-development programs. It cited clauses 5 and 6 of the UGC guidelines, stating:

"Deviant behaviors among students have several educational implications. The HEIs need to avoid such punitive measures to the extent possible and take affirmative action through programs..."

The Court also referred to Anant Narayan Mishra V/s. The Union of India and Ors. , which underscored that punishment cannot be "purblind to human dignity" and that "while every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

Natural Justice and Own Guidelines Breached: The Court found a clear violation of natural justice, as the complaint was not shared, and ex-post facto justifications (alleging petitioners were "masterminds") in affidavits were deemed undesirable.

"Apart from ex-post facto concluding that the petitioners were masterminds, there is no real distinction drawn out between the role of the three students on whom only fines were imposed and the present petitioners..."

Furthermore, the Court determined that the Institute breached its own disciplinary guidelines. The alleged theft fell under Category 2, for which the prescribed first-time penalty was "Warning + Fine Rs. 5000/- + Amount equivalent to Replacement of Theft Item." The imposed penalty of semester cancellation and a Rs. 50,000 fine was deemed a significant deviation.

Maintainability and "Institution of Eminence" Status: Relying on Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University , the Court affirmed its jurisdiction, holding that a deemed university imparting education performs a public function and is an "authority" under Article 12, thus amenable to writ jurisdiction. The argument for an alternate remedy via an Ombudsman was dismissed as unrealistic given the urgency and lack of clarity. The Court also rejected the claim that the "Institution of Eminence" status exempted BITS from all UGC regulations, particularly those concerning student discipline, citing Manipal-Tara Medical College .

Final Decision and Implications

The Court, while acknowledging the principle of non-interference in university affairs, stated that immunity cannot be claimed when an institute acts contrary to its own guidelines, ignores UGC directives on reformation, discriminates, and breaches natural justice.

The final order stipulated:

1. The penalty of cancellation of Semester I (2023-24) for the petitioners was set aside.

2. The fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on each petitioner was maintained.

3. The petitioners were directed to undertake community service for two months, two hours daily, at an old age home in Majorda , Goa, commencing 01.02.2024.

4. The Institute was directed to evaluate the petitioners' answer papers for Semester I and declare their results forthwith, granting all consequential benefits. 5. The Institute to retain Rs. 50,000/- from the Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by each petitioner, with the balance to be refunded after completion of community service.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to educational institutions, including "Institutes of Eminence," about their obligations to follow principles of natural justice, adhere to their own and UGC 's guidelines, and prioritize a reformative and humane approach when dealing with student indiscipline, especially concerning young students with no prior record of delinquency.