Gauhati HC Quashes Disciplinary Notices Against LLB Student For Allegedly Protesting Against College Authorities; Imposes Costs Of Rs. 10k As ‘Deterrent’
The Gauhati High Court has quashed disciplinary notices issued to a law student at the Tezpur Law College, while directing him to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 as a “deterrent.”
The Court also directed the student (Respondent) to tender an unconditional written apology to the college authorities to be published in two widely circulated newspapers in that locality, one in English and the other in vernacular.
A Single Bench of Justice Robin Phukan directed the student to “tender written apology to the applicant/respondent No.9 and shall publish the same in two widely circulated newspapers in that locality, one in English and the other in vernacular, and also he has to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) being the cost, which shall be deposited in the Student Welfare Fund of the Tezpur Law College and if such fund is not available, then the same shall be deposited in the office of the District Legal Services Authority, Tezpur, within a period of 1(one) month from today.”
Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhury represented the Petitioner, while Advocate P.R. Sarma appeared for the Respondents.
The College alleged that a group of students, including the Respondent, had staged a protest against the college authorities. Accordingly, the college authorities issued show-cause notices. However, the College did not find the student’s show-cause reply as satisfactory, and therefore, initiated disciplinary action.
The College issued a disciplinary notice imposing restrictions on the student, including- Denial of access to classes and examinations for the fifth semester of the LL.B. program; Prohibition from attending events and programs in the college premises; and Automatic vacation of his selection to the Tezpur Law College Students’ Union for 2024–2025.
The student approached the Court by filing a Writ Petition, praying to quash the Notice issued by the College. The Court granted an interim stay on the restrictions, enabling the student to attend classes and examinations.
During the final hearing, the Principal-In-Charge of the Law College argued that the College, as a private institution, was not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the student submitted that even though the College was a private law college, it was affiliated with the Gauhati University and must be considered a State, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution.
The High Court set aside the impugned Notice against the student by the College.
“While fixing the quantum of cost, this Court has taken note of the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties and also taken note of the background facts leading to initiation of the disciplinary action against the respondent No.1/petitioner. And taking note of the all the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the quantum of cost must have some deterrent effect and the same is required to maintain discipline amongst the unruly students. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be justified and reasonable amount of cost herein this case,” the Bench remarked.
Cause Title: The Principal v. Paramananda Saikia & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate K N Choudhury; Advocates N. Mahanta, D J Das, R M Deka and N Gautam
Respondents: Advocate P.R. Sarma; Standing Counsel P.J. Phukan