NEW DELHI: Emphasising that discipline among students in educational institutions cannot be compromised, the Delhi High Court has observed that while there can be no proscription against students engaging in political activities, they cannot be allowed to do so in a manner which would disrupt “normal campus life”, or the orderly conduct of affairs in the educational institution of which they are a part.
“Educational campuses cannot, particularly, be allowed to be converted into political platforms to propagate party politics,” Justice C Hari Shankar noted.
The High Court, however, asserted that genuine causes can be promoted within educational institutions. “But in a manner which is conducive to peace and harmony, and which does not compromise on the core function of the institution, which is to educate an entire generation to be the leaders of tomorrow,” the court added.
Disruptive activities by students should, therefore, be sternly dealt with, and there is no room, whatsoever, for sympathy in such cases, the high court said in the order.
Justice Hari Shankar said if the university is “serious about instilling discipline” within its premises, it has to ensure that enquiries conducted against students suspected of unpardonable indiscipline, and punishments awarded consequent thereto, are in strict compliance with the statutory protocol.
The court’s observations came while quashing a decision of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) administration to suspend a PhD student over allegations that she had manhandled a security guard.
The JNU administration eventually suspended the student for two semesters and evicted her from the hostel. An appeal challenging this decision before the V-C was also dismissed, prompting the student to approach the high court in this regard.
“This is the third case in two weeks, in which I have had to interfere with the punishment awarded to students suspected of seriously disruptive activities only because the university, or institution, concerned has been casual about following the statutory protocol in proceeding against the allegedly erring student,” the high court noted.
Overturning the JNU’s decision, the court said,”If the student concerned is innocent, that, of course, would be just and fair; on the other hand, if the student is actually complicit in the allegations against her, or him, victory in a judicial battle harbours the pernicious possibility of her, or him, being emboldened to continue such activities.”