Calcutta High Court news: A day before internal examinations were set to begin on April 23, the Calcutta High Court on April 22 refused to allow a 16-year-old student, expelled over an alleged January 22 bullying incident, to sit for the test immediately, holding that such relief would disrupt the academic schedule of an entire batch.
However, it directed the school to conduct a separate examination for him later if he succeeds in his case, ensuring he does not lose an academic year.
Observing that permitting the student to sit for the examination at this stage would prejudice other students and undermine the school’s disciplinary autonomy, the court held that the “balance of equities” lay in favour of the institution and the larger student body, even as it protected the petitioner’s right by allowing a deferred opportunity subject to the outcome of the case.
“The balance of equities is of a clear 2:1 ratio. The two being- a. The autonomy of the school in dealing with its own affairs; b. The well being and the rights of a large number of students who are also going to sit for the examination,” said the alcutta High Court on April 22.
Background of dispute
The case stems from an incident dated January 22, where the student was accused of physically bullying and assaulting a younger schoolmate, allegedly causing severe trauma. The allegations have been denied by the petitioners.
Following the incident, the student was suspended on January 23 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Subsequently, on March 30, the school took a final decision to expel him, although that expulsion order was not placed before the court during the hearing.
Story continues below this ad
The student approached the high court seeking interim permission to sit for the final assessment exams for progression from Class 11 to Class 12, which had been preponed to April 23, 2026.
Maintainability of writ against private school
A key issue before the alcutta High Court was whether a writ petition could be maintained against a private, unaided school.
The school argued that it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that matters relating to student discipline and administration fell within its exclusive domain. It also contended that the student, being 16 years old, was outside the scope of the fundamental right to education under Article 21A.
Rejecting these objections, the Calcutta High Court held that imparting education is a public duty, even when performed by a private institution. It observed that schools cannot act arbitrarily while discharging such a function and that their actions affecting students can be subjected to judicial review under Article 226.
Story continues below this ad
Right to education beyond age limits
The Calcutta High Court further clarified that although Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14, the right to education flows more broadly from the right to life under Article 21.
It noted that education is integral to dignity, intellectual freedom, and personal development, and denial of such a right can be challenged through constitutional remedies.
Why interim relief was denied
On the question of allowing the student to sit for the exam, the Calcutta High Court declined to grant interim relief.
It reasoned that the expulsion order was not before the high court, interfering at this stage could prejudice a large number of students appearing for the same examination and granting such relief would effectively suspend the school’s disciplinary action without proper adjudication
Story continues below this ad
The Calcutta High Court emphasised that the “balance of equities” lay in favour of protecting the interests of the school and the larger student body over the individual claim at this stage.
Protection granted to student
Despite denying immediate relief, the court ensured that the student’s academic future is not irreversibly harmed.
The Calcutta High Court directed that if the student ultimately succeeds in the writ petition, the school must arrange for him to take the examination at a later date so that he does not lose an academic year.
Next steps in case
The Calcutta High Court has permitted the petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit, including the expulsion order, by April 30, 2026. Responses are to be completed by June 20, 2026, and the matter is scheduled to be heard next in July 2026.
