Back
Quashes of Minor from , Stresses
In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of minor students, the has quashed the of a Class IX student from , Patna, holding that private unaided schools are amenable to when they act arbitrarily. A single-judge bench of Justice Harish Kumar emphasised that educational institutions must adopt a rather than resorting to the extreme penalty of for minor indiscipline.
The Boy Who Almost Lost His Academic Year
The petitioner, Satyam, approached the High Court on behalf of his minor son, a student of Class IX (Section I) at , affiliated with the . The student had been placed under suspension and subsequently expelled on , without any formal order initially being communicated. With the final term examination for the 2025–2026 academic session scheduled to commence on , the father moved the court, arguing that his son would suffer irreparable academic loss if not permitted to appear.
On , the court issued an interim order allowing the student to sit for the terminal examination, subject to the final outcome. The school later filed a counter-affidavit detailing allegations of repeated indiscipline—bunking classes, fighting with another student, and issuing threats—as grounds for the .
School’s Objection: ‘No , No Writ’
The school raised a preliminary objection that as a private unaided institution, its actions did not involve any or , and therefore the writ petition under was not maintainable. Citing the ’s decision in St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023), the school argued that the dispute arose from a contractual relationship governed by an admission agreement, and that no public law element was involved.
The petitioner countered, relying on the same ruling, contending that imparting education is a , and that the order of —made without any or —violated the and .
, : Court Rejects Maintainability Objection
Justice Harish Kumar, after a careful review of precedents including Ramana Dayaram Shetty (1979), Ajay Hasia (1981), Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002), and St. Mary's Education Society , held that even an unaided minority school discharges a when it imparts education to children. “Imparting education is undoubtedly a function having a public character,” the court observed.
The court noted that actions relating to admission, fees, and even may be subjected to where the authority has failed to act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with law. “Such action must necessarily withstand the scrutiny of the principles of embodied in ,” the judgment stated, while overruling the objection.
Order Found Cryptic and Procedurally Flawed
On merits, the court scrutinised the school’s rules, particularly Clause 66 which enumerates offences warranting disciplinary action including . The court found that “mere bunking of classes” was not specifically listed as an offence justifying the extreme penalty. As for the alleged fight, the court remarked that such incidents may arise from “momentary anger, immaturity or trivial disputes amongst children” and cannot automatically warrant without examining nature, gravity, and circumstances.
The impugned order of was described as “ and suffers from apparent ”. The court noted that no was afforded to the student or his father before the drastic decision. Relying on the principle in Mohindr Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the court held that the school could not supplement the reasons for through its counter-affidavit.
A Call for Reformative Justice in Classrooms
In what serves as the philosophical core of the judgment, Justice Harish Kumar emphasised that minor students are at a formative stage and that educational institutions owe a duty “not merely to impart academic education but also to facilitate the development of the personality, character and conduct of its students”. The court observed:
“The authorities of an educational institution must not lose sight of the fact that they are dealing with minor students who are still in the formative stage of their lives.”
“Where the misconduct is capable of correction through counselling, warning, supervision or other lesser disciplinary measures, the institution ought ordinarily to adopt a reformative and corrective approach rather than resorting immediately to the extreme penalty of .”
The court added that disciplinary action should be corrective and reformative, not merely punitive, particularly for minors.
Final Order and Future Implications
The High Court quashed the order dated and directed the school to allow the student to resume classes and participate in all academic activities, including examinations. If the student missed any mandatory term examination due to the , the school was directed to conduct a special or supplementary examination to ensure no academic prejudice.
The court also reminded the petitioner’s son to abide by the school’s rules and maintain proper discipline. The judgment reinforces that even private unaided schools are not above constitutional scrutiny when they deprive a minor of education in an arbitrary manner, and sets a strong precedent for the primacy of natural justice and in student disciplinary matters.
