Facts:
The minor son of the Petitioner, studying in Don Bosco Academy, Patna, was placed under suspension and was not permitted to attend classes. He was subsequently informed that he had been expelled, although no formal order of expulsion or reasons for the same had initially been disclosed. The formal order of expulsion was subsequently placed before the court. The Court, considering that the student was at risk of losing an academic year, directed the school to permit him to participate in the Final Term Examination.
Issue:
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the decision of a private unaided educational institution, particularly where the impugned action involves principles of natural justice, fairness, proportionality and the public-function aspect of education.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the action of the school was wholly arbitrary, illegal, cryptic and non-speaking and was in violation of the principles of natural justice, in as much as no show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or his son prior to passing the order of expulsion.
The Petitioner further submitted that the school is engaged in imparting education, which has constitutional recognition under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. It is therefore contended that the function discharged by the school is intrinsically connected with a matter of public importance.
Arguments by the Respondent:
The Respondent referred to the instances of indiscipline and misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner’s son that later became the reason for his expulsion, despite an assurance given by the petitioner that his son wouldn’t indulge in any unruly behaviour. He further submitted that the school informed the petitioner about his son’s behaviour on multiple instances, yet the boy did not mend his ways and issued a threat to the effect that the school management would be responsible for any untoward incident.
It is further contended that the parents had signed along with the admission form and executed an agreement related to the rules and regulations of the school. The said agreement specifically provides that the Principal may, in the interest of the school, require a student to leave the institution if a student fails to accept and maintain the discipline of the school. Further submitting that the relationship between the petitioner’s son and the school is purely contractual in nature and, therefore, no public element is involved in the action complained of. Hence, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised here. The impugned action has no nexus with any public duty or public element and, merely because the institution in question may otherwise be discharging a public function, it cannot be considered “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the action complained of cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction unless it involves a public element or has a nexus with a public duty.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court held that an unaided educational institution may come within the scope of Article 226 where the action complained of has a public law element, though merely imparting education does not make it “State” under Article 12. The Court observed that the Principal has the authority to take disciplinary action, including expulsion, but such power must be exercised in accordance with governing rules, natural justice, fairness and proportionality. The Court found that the misconduct alleged did not justify the extreme penalty of expulsion and that a reformative approach should be adopted towards children. The impugned order was held to be cryptic, non-speaking and in violation of natural justice and fair play.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Hon’ble Patna High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private unaided educational institution where the impugned action has a public law element or relates to the discharge of a public duty, although merely imparting education does not make the institution “State” under Article 12. The Court further held that nothing on record suggests that the Principal is wholly divested of the authority to take disciplinary action against a student in proportion to the gravity of the misconduct. Nor can it be said that they can never exercise the power of expulsion, but such powers must be used in accordance with the governing rules, proportionality and principles of natural justice. Mere bunking of classes cannot warrant such extreme consequences. About the allegations of physical altercations and intimidation, the Court held that such instances may arise out of momentary anger and immaturity or trivial disputes amongst children. Children are valuable human resource for the nation and educational institutions should adopt a reformative and corrective approach rather than resorting to the extreme penalty of expulsion. The impugned order of expulsion was cryptic, non-speaking and suffered from non-application of mind, and the school authorities failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and fair play. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the impugned order of expulsion was quashed.
Conclusion:
The decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may be maintainable against an unaided minority educational institution where the impugned action involves a public-law element, particularly where the exercise of disciplinary power is alleged to violate principles of natural justice and proportionality.
Citations:
St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 498;
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489;
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 722;
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111;
Jayshree Vijay Mundaware v. Principal/Head Mistress of Ashoka
Universal School, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3929;
Apoorva YK v. South Asian University, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 335;
Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 3935