Setting aside a direction to a student to stand outside a university in Noida for 30 minutes over 30 days, with a message on a placard that he will never misbehave with any girl, the Allahabad High Court said it was unjustified and uncalled for.
“It is not only humiliating but would cast a permanent scar on the character of the appellant,” said the division bench led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, also comprising Justice Kshitij Shailendra, in its order Wednesday while setting aside the direction by a single bench of the HC.
The appellant, who is pursuing a BSc in Medical Laboratory Technology (BSc MLT) degree at Noida International University, had been rusticated on March 30 last year for allegedly misbehaving with women students of another university. The varsity had claimed to have video recordings to justify its rustication decision.
The student had challenged his rustication through a petition in the HC. On October 29 last year, a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery had issued an order setting aside the rustication — with conditions and directions.
In the order, the single bench had observed, “On the basis of material produced by the learned counsel for respondent-university, the conduct of the petitioner appears to be not bona fide… even his attendance is less than 50% in earlier academic years.”
It had further stated, “… due to his misconduct, he has been rusticated from Noida International University. The nature of misconduct is serious, i.e., misbehaving with girl students of [another] university and bunk [bunking] classes along with… fellow students. There are some video recordings also.”
The order had stated that since the student’s father was a poor farmer, the rustication order was set aside “while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution”. It had disposed of the writ petition with five “observations/directions”.
Story continues below this ad
The second direction ordered the petitioner to carry a placard with the message that he will never misbehave with any girl. “Petitioner will stand at the gate of university carrying the aforesaid placard for 30 minutes, i.e., from 8.45 am to 9.15 am, for 30 days commencing 03.11.2025. The respondent-university will take a photograph of the aforesaid act. In case of default, respondent-university is at liberty to rusticate the petitioner,” the single judge order had said.
Other directions to the student included:
-File a notarised affidavit before the university that he will attend 95% of remaining classes and not leave the premises during class hours. In case of absence, he must submit an application for leave. “In case of any further or fresh complaint the Respondent-University is at liberty to rusticate the petitioner even without issuing notice,” the order had said.
-Issue a written apology for his act to the university.
-Police were also directed to deploy an “anti-romeo mobile squad… at the time of opening and closing of the gate” of the two universities.
Story continues below this ad
-The standing counsel was directed to communicate this order to the police.
The student then filed an appeal against this order, which was heard by the division bench on February 4.
His counsel submitted that the direction (to stand outside the gate) was not only humiliating for the student, but would perpetually affect his career.
However, the counsel for the university supported the previous order and directions.
Story continues below this ad
After hearing the submissions, the division bench observed, “While directions no. (I), (III), (IV) and consequential direction no. (V) are justified looking at the conduct of the appellant in having 50% attendance in earlier academic years, we are firmly of the opinion that nature of direction no. (II), which has been passed by a learned Single Judge, is not justified under any circumstances.”
The bench further observed, “Direction of such nature, wherein the appellant would carry a placard with a message that he will never misbehave with any girl and stand at the gate of the university… for 30 minutes for 30 days, is not only humiliating but would cast a permanent scar on the character of the appellant, which, in the circumstances of the case, is not called for.”
“In view of the above… we set aside direction no. (II) passed by the learned single judge,” it said.
