Freedom of Expression: While students have the right to freedom of expression, this right is subject to the rules and regulations of the educational institution.

Proportionality of Punishment: The Court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision unless the punishment is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court.

Past Conduct: Past conduct can be considered in disciplinary proceedings if the delinquent is given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond.

Held: The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the two-year suspension of the Petitioner.

Reasoning: The Court found that the Petitioner had breached the Institute’s Code of Conduct and Honour Code by participating in a politically motivated protest under the banner of PSF-TISS, which involved the Institute’s name. The Court held that the consideration of the Petitioner’s past conduct was valid, as he had been given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Court ruled that the punishment of suspension was not disproportionate, given the gravity of the misconduct and the need to maintain institutional discipline.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

2. University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2023 – Governance of Deemed Universities and disciplinary powers.

3. National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste Students (NFSC) – Guidelines for financial assistance to SC students.

Subjects:

• Student Code of Conduct – Breach of Institute’s ethical standards.

• Politically Motivated Protest – Participation under the banner of PSF-TISS.

• Suspension – Two-year suspension for misconduct.

• Freedom of Expression – Limits within institutional rules.

• Past Conduct – Consideration in disciplinary actions.

• Proportionality of Punishment – Whether suspension was disproportionate.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The Petitioner, Ramadas KS, a Ph.D. student at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), challenged his two-year suspension by the Institute for alleged misconduct and anti-national activities.

2. Remedy Sought: The Petitioner sought revocation of his suspension, restoration of his student entitlements, and continuation of his NFSC fellowship.

3. Reason for Filing: The Petitioner was suspended based on a report by the Empowered Committee, which found him guilty of participating in a politically motivated protest under the banner of PSF-TISS and breaching the Institute’s Code of Conduct.

4. Previous Decisions: The Petitioner had previously been involved in protests and sit-ins, which were considered in the disciplinary proceedings.

Issues:

1. Whether the Petitioner’s suspension for two years was justified under the Institute’s Code of Conduct and Honour Code?

2. Whether the Petitioner’s participation in a politically motivated protest under the banner of PSF-TISS constituted a breach of the Institute’s rules?

3. Whether the consideration of the Petitioner’s past conduct in the disciplinary proceedings was valid?

4. Whether the punishment of suspension was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Arguments:

   • The Petitioner argued that the protest was peaceful and conducted in a public place with police permission.

   • He contended that the screening of the documentary “Ram Ke Naam” was not banned and that his participation in the protest was an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of expression.

   • He claimed that the suspension was disproportionate and that the Institute’s actions were vindictive.

2. Respondent’s Arguments:

   • The Institute argued that the Petitioner had breached the Code of Conduct by using the Institute’s name in a politically motivated protest, which brought disrepute to the Institute.

   • The Institute highlighted the Petitioner’s past conduct, including unauthorized protests and sit-ins, as aggravating factors.

   • The Institute contended that the suspension was proportionate and in line with the applicable rules.