PANAJI
Two students of the Birla Institute of Technology Science, Goa campus at Zuarinagar who approached the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking the court’s intervention after they were debarred for one semester were granted relief by the High Court who ordered that they do community service for two hours every day for two months instead.
The two students Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy and Karri Kishore Ramachandra Reddy, aged 18 and 19 years respectively, were caught along with three others stealing potato chips, chocolates, sanitisers, pens, notepads, mobile phone stands, two desk lamps and three bluetooth speakers from the stalls on the college campus.
Initially all the five students were debarred from registration during semester I (2023-24) and two further semesters. However in respect of the three other students, the appellate authority dropped the penalty of cancellation of semesters but maintained the fine of Rs 50,000.
The High Court took offence to the Director of the Institute refusing to modify the punishment with a view to help the students reform as well as the director’s decision to hand out unequal punishment for the same alleged breach of the institute’s disciplinary rules.
In his submissions before the Court, the institute’s director said that “any reduction of punishment, at this stage, will encourage students to seek Court intervention against decisions given by the Institute, undermining the time-tested disciplinary system of the Institute.”
“The prime reason for not being merciful or for almost ignoring the reformative aspect, so clearly emphasised by the UGC guidelines, was the apprehension that students would seek Court intervention against the Institute's decision and such Court intervention would undermine the disciplinary systems of the Institute. 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,” the High Court division bench said.
“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… though we are hurt by this approach of the Director of an Institute of Eminence, we refrain from saying anything more because we are mindful that the two petitioners before us have to complete their education with the respondents for the next few years and not be scarred for life due to the indiscretion or even indiscipline indulged by them on this one occasion,” the High Court also said.
However, where the Institute acts contrary to its own guidelines, ignores UGC directives (particularly on the aspect of reformation), discriminates between two sets of students even though there was no appreciable difference between circumstances of the two sets and the Institute breaches the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Institute cannot claim any immunity based on the principle that Courts should be slow in interfering with its internal affairs concerning disciplinary proceedings against students, the High Court said in response to the argument made by the institute that Courts should not use their judicial discretion to interfere in matters happening within the institute.
The High Court, which had through an earlier order, allowed the students to answer their semester exams, ordered that their answer sheets be unsealed and they be granted the benefits of having attended the semester and instead ordered that they undertake community service for a period of two months and for two hours each day” which they have agreed to do at an old age home at Majorda.
