Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court, Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice M.M. Sathaye, dismissed a petition challenging the suspension of a Ph.D. student from an academic institution. The petitioner contested the suspension imposed by the institution's Empowered Committee following allegations of misconduct, including participation in a protest and unauthorized use of the institution’s name. The court recorded that the petitioner had "participated in a politically motivated Parliament March under the banner of PSF-TISS in a student group," leading to the disciplinary action. The court further observed that "the finding of the Committee that the petitioner created an impression in general public that the politically motivated protest and views were the views of the institution, is founded on material available on record and no fault can be found to that extent."

The court examined whether the institutional Code of Conduct and disciplinary framework were correctly applied in the decision-making process. It found that the petitioner had been given due notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond. The court recorded, "The petitioner has been given sufficient notice about his past conduct and he has replied to the same on merits and as such, the past conduct of the petitioner is an important consideration while deciding the legality and proportionality of the impugned suspension order."

Also Read: SC-ST Man Abused By Calling Him Caste Name In A Place Not Within Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Accused

The petitioner, a 30-year-old Ph.D. student, was enrolled in a doctoral program at the respondent institution. The institution had suspended the petitioner for a period of two years, citing violations of the Student Code of Conduct and disciplinary guidelines. The disciplinary action was based on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in protests, unauthorized events, and social media activities that were deemed to have associated the institution’s name with political activism.

The petitioner initially enrolled in the institution in 2015 for a master’s program and later pursued an integrated M.Phil.-Ph.D. course. In 2023, the petitioner received a National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste (NFSC) students. The suspension also resulted in the discontinuation of this fellowship, as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

The events leading to the disciplinary action began in March 2023, when the petitioner participated in a protest outside the Director’s residence on the institution’s campus. A subsequent show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on March 7, 2024, citing misconduct, including participation in the Parliament March protest on January 12, 2024, and the unauthorized screening of a documentary on January 26, 2024. The notice also referred to past incidents of participation in demonstrations without institutional approval.

The petitioner responded to the notice on March 20, 2024, denying any violation of institutional policies and asserting the right to engage in peaceful protest. However, the institution’s Empowered Committee found the explanations unsatisfactory and recommended a two-year suspension. The institution subsequently issued a suspension order barring the petitioner from entering any of its campuses during the suspension period.

The petitioner challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court, seeking revocation of the suspension and reinstatement of the NFSC fellowship. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were biased, that the institutional code of conduct was applied selectively, and that the suspension was disproportionate.

The court examined the institution’s Code of Conduct, disciplinary policies, and the findings of the Empowered Committee. It recorded that the petitioner’s participation in the Parliament March and the unauthorized use of the institution’s name in protest materials were in violation of institutional regulations. The judgment stated, "The petitioner can have any political view of his choice, but so does the institution. The petitioner has full freedom of expressing his political view; but to do so under the banner of respondent institution is what is objected to by the institution."

The court referred to Clause 9 of the institution’s Honour Code, which prohibits students from "maligning the name of the institution by presenting fabricated and falsified views on any platform, tarnishing/damaging the image of the institution in the public domain." It noted that the petitioner had acknowledged participating in the protest as a representative of a student group affiliated with the institution.

The court also examined the disciplinary framework outlined in the institution’s Student Code of Conduct. Clause 24 of the Code states, "Discipline will be promptly and consistently applied to serve as notice that there are serious consequences for intentional wrongdoing." The court found that the institution had followed its internal procedures in imposing the disciplinary action.

Addressing the petitioner’s contention regarding past conduct, the court observed that the institution had previously taken a lenient approach. However, it noted that the petitioner’s continued engagement in unauthorized protests led to the present action. The judgment recorded, "The petitioner was given sufficient notice on the consideration of past conduct, we do not find any error in the committee’s decision to consider the past conduct of the petitioner."

The court further examined whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987 INSC 285), which establishes that a penalty must not be so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. The judgment stated, "It cannot be said that the penalty of suspension as imposed, is so disproportionate to the reasons for which the same has been imposed, so as to shock the conscience of the Court."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Mandates Bank Guarantee, Declaring Appropriation of GST Funds by Bank as 'Clearly Impermissible' and reserved 'for Tax Authorities'

The Bombay High Court upheld the institution’s decision and dismissed the petition. It found no procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process and concluded that the suspension was justified based on the petitioner’s actions. The court recorded, "There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs."

The court also addressed the discontinuation of the NFSC fellowship, noting that the funding was subject to institutional confirmation. The judgment stated, "Since the petitioner has been suspended by the institute for a period of two years, he is not eligible to get fellowship during the suspension period."

Advocates Representing the Parties

 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Rishika Agarwal and Ms. Lara Jasani, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 1 (TISS): Mr. Rajeev Kumar Pandey, assisted by Mr. Madhur Rai, Mr. Sachin Kanse, Mr. Ashish Kanojia, Mr. Yogesh Mishra, and Ms. Sneha Nandgaokar, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 2 (UGC): Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 3 (Union of India): Ms. Shilpa Kapil, Advocate.

Case Title: Ramadas KS v. Tata Institute of Social Sciences & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:4074-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3359 of 2024
Bench: Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice M.M. Sathaye

[Read/Download order]