Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed by a student who was rusticated for misbehaving with female students, the Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the direction to stand at the University gate with a placard saying that he won’t misbehave with girls was not only humiliating but also would cast a permanent scar on his character.
Background
The appellant, a student from NOIDA International University (“the University”), was rusticated for misbehaving with female students and bunking classes. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before the Court.
Though the nature of the misconduct was serious, the Single Judge quashed the rustication order, considering that the appellant’s father was a poor farmer who was sending his son to college with great difficulty. The Court further issued the following directions:
-
The appellant shall file a notarized affidavit with the University stating that he will attend 95% of the remaining classes, and in the event of absence, he shall apply for leave. He will not leave the University premises during class hours. In the event of any further or new complaint, the University was at liberty to rusticate him without issuing a notice.
-
The appellant shall stand at the Gate of the University carrying a placard with a message that he will never misbehave with any girl for 30 minutes, i.e., from 08:45 AM to 09:15 AM, for 30 days commencing from 03-11-2025. The University will take a photograph of the aforesaid act. In case of default, the University was at liberty to rusticate him.
-
The appellant shall file a written apology for his act before the University within 72 hours from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by the direction to carry a placard, the appellant filed the present appeal, contending that the direction was not only humiliating but would also perpetually affect his career.
Analysis
While upholding the other directions as justified, the Court held that the nature of the impugned direction was not justified under any circumstances.
The Court stated that, “Direction of such nature wherein the appellant would carry a placard with message that he will never misbehave with any girl and stand at the gate of the University carrying placard 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.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned direction.
[X v. Chairman U.G.C., Special Appeal Defective No. 80 of 2026, decided on 04-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Gopal Srivastava
For the respondent: Anubhav Singh, Jagdish Pathak, S.C., Pratik Chandra