2 BITS Goa students asked by court to do community service for stealing

The five students had confronted the college’s standing committee of picking up eatables and other said items from the stalls, claiming they were under the impression that the items were abandoned there. The students had returned the items, and apologised in writing for the same. The panel had debarred all the five students from registration for semester 1 (2023-24) and two more, while imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 on them.

Upon appeal, the appellate authority (Director) had dropped the penalty of cancellation of semesters for three students, but maintained the fine. In the case of the two petitioners, the appellate authority maintained the semester 1 cancellation as well as the Rs 50,000 fine, following which, they approached the High Court.

During the final hearing — on at least two occasions — the Court deferred the matter to enable the Director (of the institute) to reconsider the punishment of cancellation of semesters.

The advocate for the respondents, however, argued that “any reduction of punishment at this stage will encourage the students to seek Court intervention against decisions given by the institute, undermining the time-tested disciplinary system of the Institute”.

The court said, “We almost got the impression that the Director was irked by the fact that these two petitioners had dared to seek Court intervention against his decision… Again though, we are hurt by this approach of the Director of an Institute of Eminence, we refrain from saying anything more because we are mindful that the two petitioners before us have to complete their education with the respondents for the next few years and not be scarred for life due to indiscretion or even indiscipline indulged by them on this one occasion.”

Stating that it was quite conscious of the principle that ‘ordinarily, the courts must be slow to interfere with the internal affairs of a University, particularly on issues concerning disciplinary proceedings against students’, the court said, “…However, where the Institute acts contrary to its own guidelines, ignores UGC directives (particularly on the aspect of reformation), discriminates between two sets of students even though there was no appreciable difference between the circumstances of the two sets and the Institute breaches the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Institute cannot claim any immunity based on the principle that Courts should be slow in interfering with its internal affairs concerning disciplinary proceedings against students…”

“..When it is found that there is discrimination in a matter of imposition of penalties or, where the penalties imposed are in breach of guidelines enacted by the Institute itself or where the penalty imposed excludes considerations of reformation, the Institute cannot claim any immunity from judicial review,” said the court, adding 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.

“Accordingly, it would be appropriate if the impugned order dated 1.12.2023 is modified by setting aside the penalty of debarment from answering the semester examination,” said the court.