Delhi High Court Rules Child Below 14 Cannot Be Rusticated Under Education Rules

Court Grants Interim Relief to 13-Year-Old EWS Student After School Orders Rustication

The Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect the educational rights of a 13-and-a-half-year-old student belonging to the Economically Weaker Section, holding that a child below the age of 14 cannot be rusticated under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the interim order on August 14, 2026, directing Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, to allow the minor to continue her Class VIII education.

Background: A Single Day's Absence Leads to Rustication?

The petitioner, Akhta Khan, through her mother Anjum Khan, had been studying at the school since 2016 under the EWS quota. On July 6, 2026, she did not attend school and missed an examination scheduled for that day, allegedly because of persuasion by two Class XI students. The very next day, the school called the student and her mother and allegedly asked the mother to collect the student’s Transfer Certificate. When the mother pleaded, the school authorities orally informed her that the child could not attend school for one month, after which her case would be considered.

The mother contended that the school had effectively rusticated the child, an action that violated Rules 35 and 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules.

School's Action Prima Facie Illegal: Court

The court examined Rule 37(1)(b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, which prescribes disciplinary measures. The provision clearly states that disciplinary actions such as fine, expulsion, and rustication can only be taken against students who have attained the age of 14 years. Since the petitioner was only 13-and-a-half years old, the court found the school's action to be in contravention of the express stipulation.

“In the present case, the petitioner has only attained the age of thirteen and a half years. Thus, the action of the respondent No. 2 is in contravention with the express stipulation provided under the DSER Rules,” the court observed.

Education Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Cost of Disciplinary Action

The court also took note of the student’s EWS status and her entitlement to free and compulsory education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Granting interim relief, the court held that the student had made out a prima facie case and that denying her access to education would result in an irreparable loss.

“If the petitioner is not allowed to continue with her education in the respondent No. 2 school, the said action will result in violation of the valuable right of the petitioner and the prima facie unsubstantiated/illegal action of the respondent No. 2 would be validated at the cost of the education of a child,” Justice Singh said.

Court's Direction

The court directed that “till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue with her education in Class-VIII at the respondent No. 2 school.” The Directorate of Education was also directed to ensure compliance with the order, keeping in view the best interest of the child.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 14, 2026.