Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education VS K. S. Gandhi...
1991 0 Supreme(SC) 146 : The court held that the suspension or inquiry process against students did not violate the principles of natural justice, despite the absence of opportunity for parents or guardians to participate. The court reasoned that the students, being minors, were not unfairly treated during the domestic inquiry, and the assistance of an advocate was not required. The show cause notice provided sufficient particulars, and students were given the opportunity to submit explanations and evidence. The students were able to identify their own answer sheets, verify marks, and admit to tampering in the moderators'''' mark sheets. The court found that the procedure was fair and just, and the absence of parental or guardian participation did not vitiate the legality of the inquiry. Therefore, the suspension or disciplinary action based on the inquiry was not invalid due to lack of natural justice.Checking relevance for Sunil Sikri VS Guru Harkrishan Public School...
Checking relevance for ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 579 : The court held that the Order of Suspension dated 27.05.2019 was not based on the provisions of the 1999 Act or the 2000 Regulations, and therefore constituted a suspension without following natural justice. The court emphasized that the suspension was issued based on the registration of an FIR against the appellants, and not on the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee, which would have been required under the statutory framework. The court further found that the suspension violated the principles of natural justice because it was not preceded by a proper inquiry or opportunity to be heard, and granted redress to the appellants by allowing them to re-enter the College and Hospital to pursue their studies, subject to certain conditions. This decision was grounded in the protection of the appellants'''' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to a fair procedure and protection against arbitrary state action.Checking relevance for Jawaharlal Nehru University VS B. S. Narwal...
1980 0 Supreme(SC) 393 : The removal of a student from the rolls of a university due to unsatisfactory academic performance by the academic body does not require adherence to the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard. The court held that such academic assessments are within the domain of academic authorities, who are best qualified to judge academic performance, and that courts are least qualified to intervene. The decision to remove a student based on academic evaluation, without prior hearing, is not invalid merely because the student was not given an opportunity to be heard, especially when the assessment is purely academic and not influenced by non-academic factors. The court emphasized that the nature of academic adjudication negates the need for a hearing, and that the doctrine of audi alteram partem cannot be unnaturally extended to such cases. Therefore, suspension or removal without following natural justice (such as a hearing) is permissible in the context of academic performance evaluation.Checking relevance for NTR University of Health Sciences VS L. Prakasam Reddy...
Checking relevance for Aureliano Fernandes VS State of Goa...
Checking relevance for St. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava...
Checking relevance for Sampath Karthikeya Busa VS University Grants Commission...
2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 346 : An indefinite suspension of a student is penal in nature and must be followed by an enquiry in light of the principles of natural justice. Suspension cannot be indefinite without conducting an enquiry. Even if Rule 10 of the relevant rules is invoked, it cannot be used to deny the application of principles of natural justice for suspension pending enquiry and trial. The action of indefinite suspension entails serious consequences, such as preventing the student from attending classes, and therefore requires compliance with natural justice, including an opportunity of hearing. In cases involving expulsion or rustication, principles of natural justice must be followed, and the Disciplinary Committee must be constituted under Rule 12 to conduct the enquiry.Checking relevance for Podugu Deepika D/o Podugu Nandan Kumar VS Union of India Rep. by the Secretary (Higher Education), New Delhi...
2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 971 : The court held that disciplinary actions in educational institutions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to be informed of evidence against a student. The failure to disclose the Fact Finding Committee''''s report to the petitioners constituted a violation of natural justice, which necessitated partial intervention by the court. As a result, the court partially set aside certain disciplinary actions (mandatory counseling and social service) due to the procedural violation, while upholding the suspension and expulsion for the period specified in the communication dated 26.04.2024. This establishes that a suspension of a student without following natural justice—specifically, the right to know the evidence against them—can be invalidated or modified by a court.
