By ordering two students of a leading institute to undertake community service rather than them being debarred from taking their semester exam after theft of some items from stalls at the campus, the Bombay High Court at Goa has set an enlightened example
The Bombay High Court at Goa recently observed that experience teaches the fact of human fallibility, but knowledge holds the hope of human redemption. If error is part of human nature, reform is an element of the human spirit. The capacity of human beings to introspect on erring ways and the power of human will to reform deviant conduct are building blocks of the concept of human dignity.
The observations were made by the Division Bench, comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice MS Sonak, while setting aside a penalty debarring two students of Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani (BITS Pilani), Goa campus, from appearing for their semester examination. The bench, instead, directed them to undertake two-hour community service daily at an old-age home in Goa for two months.
The students had challenged the order of December 2023 cancelling their registration for Semester I (2023-24) and imposition of fines of Rs 50,000 each, among other punishments imposed upon them. These penalties were for their alleged involvement in the theft of potato chips, chocolates, sanitisers, pens, notepads, mobile phone stands, two desk lamps and three Bluetooth speakers from stalls on the college campus.
The verdict is in line with the expert committee set up by the University Grants Commission which suggested the guidelines to be implemented by all Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). All HEIs were directed to make or amend their ordinances, regulatory provisions and other rules accordingly to ensure that the guidelines are implemented in the best interest of students.
In Anant Narayan Mishra vs The Union of India and 4 Ors (WRIT-C No.13214 of 2019), the single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court had issued several directions to the universities in Uttar Pradesh on the aspect of emphasis upon reformation and self-development of students alleged to be involved in indiscipline. This was after noticing that the statutes of universities like IIT, BHU and AMU focused mainly on penal action without sufficient emphasis on reformation and rehabilitation. The Court held that the statutory monopoly of a punitive approach to deviant behaviour and the exclusion of all other responses often creates a lack of balance in the actions of the concerned university. In such cases, the punishment becomes disproportionate, not because the decision-maker was incapable of measured action, but because the ordinances/statutes preclude a proportional response.
The Court, after discussing the concept of “life” and “human dignity”, both in the Indian and international context, held that “if punishment is to be effective and serve its purpose, it cannot be purblind to human dignity if it is to retain its constitutionality. The degree of injuries to self-esteem, the extent of degradation of human worth, and the depth of humiliation caused by the punishment are relevant facts to be probed in an enquiry into the validity of the punishment to be imposed upon the students.”
The Court further observed that “while every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. Therefore, punishment for deviant conduct cannot be so severe as to degrade human life. Failure to consider susceptibility to reform while denying the right to access privileges and activities of the university negates the possibility of rehabilitation.”
The High Court held that the termination of dialogue with the delinquent student, without offering an opportunity to reform, makes him an outcaste, and the loss of human self-worth is total. The statutory monopoly of a punitive approach to deviant behaviour and the exclusion of all other responses often creates a lack of balance in the actions of the concerned university. In such cases, the punishment becomes disproportionate, not because the decision-maker was incapable of measured action, but because the ordinances/statutes preclude a proportional response. The Court held that this system of punishment is destructive of fundamental elements of human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court bench also held that education is the most credible and effective mode of restoring self-esteem and enhancing self-worth. By denying opportunities of education to a delinquent student without looking at the possibility of reform, the power to redeem one’s errors and enhance self-worth is taken away from an individual. In these cases, the closure of avenues of education extinguishes the hope for a better tomorrow. Loss of hope and its sequitur perpetual condemnation are fatal blows to the human spirit and self-esteem.
The Court held that “Universities are quasi-parental institutions. By the act of suspension or debarment of a delinquent student, the university abandons its ward. If the Universities think that they have solved their problem, but society has one at its hands. The downstream effects of the punishments should, therefore, be considered by the Universities. The role of the University should not end with punishing the perpetrators of indiscipline. The role of Universities begins with the identification of the causes and taking steps to reduce such causes.”
It was observed by the Court that the circumstance that students would approach the courts against the director’s decision cannot be a legitimate consideration for not tempering justice with mercy. It said that every student has the right to seek redressal from the court of law, and the fact that students might take recourse to courts of law cannot be a valid consideration not to revisit the penalty imposed by adhering to the UGC guidelines, which emphasise the reformative element. The Court directed the students to undertake community service at an old-age home not too far from their institute, at Majorda village in South Goa.
Such community services in place of penal action can be interpreted in different ways going by legal records. In June 2022, the Allahabad High Court while granting bail to an accused, imposed the bizarre condition of directing him to deposit Rs 1 lakh in favour of a registered gaushala or cowshed in Bareilly and to serve the cows there for one month.
In a not-so-usual order, in 2021, the Delhi High Court had directed a young man charged with an attempt to murder to do community service at the Gurdwara Bangla Sahib. In the same year, a local court in Bihar gave bail to a washerman accused of molestation on the condition that he should wash and iron the clothes of all women in his village for free for six months.
In 2020, Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay of the Patna High Court while granting bail to a man accused in a murder case, directed him to render service as a volunteer for a period of three months from the date of his release in the process of combating the Covid-19 pandemic.
The National Education Policy 2020 also addresses this issue. It said that to ensure the students’ physical, psychological and emotional well-being, support centres and career counsellors are to be made available for all students in HEIs.
The challenge lies in creating institutionalised provisions and practices and standard operating procedures that can ensure comprehensive protection to students for factors that cause psychological distress among students.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau