Introduction:

The Gauhati High Court, in a pivotal judgment, struck down two disciplinary notices issued by the Principal-in-Charge of Tezpur Law College against law student Paramananda Saikia, on the condition that the student tender a written apology to the college authorities, publish it in two widely circulated newspapers (one in English and one in vernacular), and pay a cost of Rs.10,000. The disciplinary action stemmed from an incident during a college event on August 31, 2024, where Saikia and a group of students allegedly disrupted proceedings. Following unsatisfactory responses to a show-cause notice, restrictions were imposed, barring the student from attending classes, examinations, and college events. Saikia approached the Gauhati High Court, challenging these actions as being in violation of procedural norms and his fundamental rights.

Arguments:

Paramananda Saikia argued that the disciplinary actions violated the rules governing the Residents, Health, and Discipline Board of Gauhati University, which Tezpur Law College follows. He contended that he was not afforded a fair hearing and that the disciplinary measures were imposed arbitrarily. His counsel, Advocate P.R Sarma, emphasized that despite the College being a private institution, it was affiliated with Gauhati University, thus making the writ petition maintainable under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which includes the state under the definition of state entities. The petitioner’s primary concern was that the restrictions, if enforced, would severely damage his academic career and future prospects.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhury, representing the Principal-in-Charge of Tezpur Law College, argued that as a private institution, Tezpur Law College was not bound by the same constitutional principles as public institutions and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked against it. He maintained that the college had the authority to enforce disciplinary measures, particularly as the actions of the petitioner were deemed disruptive and against the college’s rules.

Choudhury further argued that the college was ready to offer the petitioner some relief, provided he tendered an unconditional apology to the college authorities and published the apology in two newspapers, as a means to ensure discipline and maintain order within the college. Additionally, the college demanded a cost of Rs.10,000 to be paid into the Student Welfare Fund, which would act as both a deterrent and a sign of accountability.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Robin Phukan, upon reviewing the arguments from both sides, issued an order on December 20, 2024, stating that while the disciplinary measures imposed on Saikia were severe, they were not entirely unjustified considering the nature of the disruption caused during the freshmen social event. However, the court also recognized that the disciplinary actions were imposed without the proper procedural fairness, particularly without a full hearing or an opportunity for the petitioner to present his case adequately.

In balancing both the need for maintaining discipline and the rights of the student, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the disciplinary notices. However, the court made it clear that Saikia must tender an apology for his actions, emphasizing that an apology would be a necessary step for the student to maintain his academic standing. The court also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 to serve as both a deterrent and a means to contribute to the Student Welfare Fund.

The court further noted that the apology should be published in two newspapers—one in English and one in the vernacular language to ensure that it reached a broad audience. Justice Phukan also clarified that the petitioner was required to comply with these orders within two months. If Saikia failed to do so, the restrictions imposed by the college would automatically be reinstated.

In his ruling, the judge highlighted the importance of disciplinary action in educational institutions, especially in maintaining order and ensuring that students adhere to institutional guidelines. However, he also stressed that such actions must always be conducted fairly and in accordance with due process.