Introduction:

In the case titled IP vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2654 of 2025), the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently rendered a critical decision concerning the intersection of student rights, institutional discipline, and freedom of expression. The petitioner, a final year student at Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur, challenged her suspension from the institution, which came in the wake of her association with one Rejaz, a journalist and a member of the Democratic Student Association (DSA), Kerala. Rejaz was arrested on May 7 for allegedly making critical social media posts concerning the Indian Army’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ conducted against terrorist camps in Pakistan. The petitioner, who had also posted politically sensitive content on Instagram, was interrogated by the police, although not arrested, and had her phone seized. Subsequently, the Symbiosis Law School suspended her from all academic and non-academic activities, including barring her from appearing in her 9th semester examinations, pending the conclusion of a disciplinary inquiry. The vacation bench presided by Justice Rohit Joshi was tasked with determining whether such suspension violated the principles of natural justice and constituted an unlawful punishment.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate S. Kulkarni, contended that the disciplinary action taken by Symbiosis Law School against her was not merely administrative but punitive. She argued that under the Procedure to Deal with Misconduct/Indiscipline by Students, 2023, as enshrined in the Code of Conduct of Symbiosis International (Deemed University), suspension without conducting an inquiry violates the doctrine of natural justice. The core grievance was that she was not allowed to be heard or defend herself before such a serious step was taken. Her counsel stressed that the suspension, along with the debarment from appearing in crucial semester exams, amounted to a penalty which should have been preceded by due process. The petitioner emphasised her academic record and the irreparable harm she would suffer if prevented from writing her examinations. She also raised concerns about being unfairly scapegoated due to a post on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which alleged that she had been “radicalised” by Rejaz. The petitioner claimed that her political expression on Instagram, critical as it may be, fell within her rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the institution’s reliance on an FIR lodged against another individual to suspend her was arbitrary and disproportionate.

On the opposing side, the Symbiosis Law School, represented by Advocate Kuldeep Mahalle, maintained that the action taken was within the bounds of administrative discretion granted to the institution under the Code of Conduct. He clarified that the suspension was not punitive but was imposed as a precautionary measure pending the outcome of a full disciplinary enquiry, which was set to conclude before May 25, 2025. He highlighted that the order itself contained a provision that if the petitioner were to be exonerated, she would be allowed to sit for special examinations so that her academic progress would not be adversely impacted. This, the institution argued, demonstrated that it was acting with fairness and not with an intent to punish. The school asserted that as an academic institution entrusted with maintaining discipline and decorum, it must be allowed some latitude to act swiftly in situations that could tarnish its reputation or disturb the academic environment. The Assistant Government Pleader SS Jachak, representing the State, submitted that the matter was at an early stage and the court should not interfere in the interim administrative functions of the educational institution.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Rohit Joshi, presiding over the vacation court, rendered a nuanced and balanced decision. He noted at the outset that the matter was in a very preliminary stage and that the full set of facts surrounding the petitioner’s involvement had not yet been placed on record. The judge carefully examined the nature of the suspension order issued by Symbiosis Law School and its implications. He pointed out that while the petitioner had been barred from attending academic and non-academic activities, the order categorically stated that in the event of her exoneration, she would be permitted to take special examinations, thereby mitigating any academic loss. The court accepted the institution’s submission that the enquiry would be completed by May 25, 2025, and that her final examination was scheduled for June 5, 2025.

Justice Joshi ruled that this arrangement sufficiently balanced the interests of the institution in maintaining decorum and discipline, and the academic interests of the petitioner. He held that the suspension did not amount to punishment as claimed by the petitioner. Instead, it was an administrative measure pending the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. The court was of the prima facie view that the educational institution had taken a cautious approach to avoid reputational damage and preserve the integrity of its academic environment without rushing to impose a final punishment. The bench underlined that the principles of natural justice would be satisfied if the enquiry was conducted in a time-bound manner and the petitioner was allowed to participate fully and defend herself.

Therefore, the court refused to interfere with the suspension order and dismissed the petition seeking interim relief. However, it issued strict directions to the institution to complete the disciplinary enquiry by May 25, 2025, and to communicate the result to the petitioner on the same day. Additionally, the court directed the petitioner to cooperate fully with the enquiry process. The court’s approach was to ensure that institutional autonomy was preserved while simultaneously safeguarding the student’s rights through procedural fairness. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the FIR against Rejaz or the political content of the petitioner’s posts, indicating that those matters were not directly relevant to the judicial review of the administrative action taken by the law school. This decision reinforces the idea that freedom of expression, though constitutionally guaranteed, may be reasonably restricted in academic environments if such expression intersects with issues of national security or institutional discipline.