Teacher's Satirical Jibe at LPG Prices Sparks Suspension Battle—High Court Hits Pause

In a swift intervention, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior stayed the suspension of primary school teacher Saket Kumar Purohit , who faced departmental action for a Facebook video mimicking Prime Minister Narendra Modi's style while lampooning rising LPG prices. Justice Ashish Shroti ruled on March 25, 2026, that the order smacked of haste and political pressure, remanding it for fresh consideration.

From Facebook Post to Courtroom Clash

Saket Kumar Purohit, stationed at Government Primary School in Aadivasi Mohalla Semarkhedi, Shivpuri district, uploaded a video on March 12, 2026, around 6 PM. In it, mimicking the PM's oratory, he quipped: "My dear brothers and sisters, did gas prices decrease or not? Gas prices increased because eating roti cooked on gas also creates gas in the stomach." He satirically linked it to the Israel-Iran conflict's impact on LPG shortages, suggesting it would force the rich and poor alike back to traditional stoves, narrowing inequality.

The very next day, BJP MLA Pritam Lodhi from the Pohri constituency fired off a complaint to District Education Officer (DEO) Vivek Shrivastava , alleging the video mimicked a political leader and aimed to disturb society. Hours later, on March 13, the DEO suspended Purohit under Rule 3(1),(2),(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 , attaching him to the Block Education Officer’s office in Badarwas. Purohit challenged this via Writ Petition No. 10356 of 2026, claiming no violation and political dictation.

Petitioner's Plea: No Objection, Just Observation

Purohit's counsel, Krishna Kartikey Sharma , argued the video was innocuous—merely highlighting LPG woes from geopolitical tensions, not inciting unrest. He stressed it didn't breach conduct rules, accused the DEO of mechanical obedience to the MLA's letter, and noted Purohit's additional role as Master Trainer under a Collector’s order from October 2025, which couldn't be overridden. Annexures showcased Purohit's social contributions as a dedicated educator.

State's Stand: Suspension Isn't Punishment

Government Advocate Brij Mohan Patel countered that suspension is merely an interim shield against mischief during inquiries, not a penalty. He urged dismissal, claiming no competence issue barred judicial review.

Court's Scalpel: Dismantling the 'Suspension Syndrome'

Drawing from Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agrawal (2013) and State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994), the court reiterated suspension's role as an aid to undisrupted proceedings, not routine retribution. It invoked the state's January 13, 2005, circular mandating suspension only for grave allegations warranting major penalties like dismissal—explicitly curbing "unnecessary suspensions" for minor lapses.

Justice Shroti dissected prior rulings, including this court's Smt. Nahid Jahan v. State of M.P. (W.P. No.14176/2017), holding that competence alone doesn't immunize orders from scrutiny. Powers must be exercised judiciously, sans arbitrariness or "suspension syndrome"—a malaise where irritability trumps evidence.

Here, the timeline screamed haste: video on March 12 evening, MLA complaint and suspension on March 13, sans inquiry or assessment of penalty gravity. No nod to conduct rule specifics or 2005 guidelines. Echoing Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel (2006), the court deemed it palpably arbitrary, allegedly under MLA "dictates."

Punchy Pronouncements from the Bench

"Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent employee may not have custody or control over relevant records or misuse his position."

"The competent authority is required to form an opinion as to whether the allegations levelled against the delinquent are such which may warrant major penalty of dismissal or removal from service."

"An employee cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner as part of a 'suspension syndrome'."

"If it suffers from non-application of mind or is palpably arbitrary, it is liable to be interfered with."

Fresh Lens Ordered: Stay in Place

The court quashed the order's operation prima facie, directing the DEO to reconsider afresh—factoring facts, 2005 instructions, and Nahid Jahan principles. The stay holds till a new decision.

This ruling reinforces checks on administrative overreach, potentially curbing knee-jerk suspensions in politically charged scenarios. For teachers and public servants, it signals that satire on public issues isn't fair game for snap sanctions without due process.