The Goa Bench of Bombay High Court has directed two engineering students to do community service for two hours daily for two months, giving them relief from strict action by their college after they apparently stole items such as potato chips, chocolates, pens during a conference.
The Bench comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice M. S. Sonak on Monday set aside the decision of Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) Pilani, Goa campus, to debar the students from appearing for their semester examination.
The Bench instead directed the students, both aged 18, to perform community service for two hours every day at an old-age home in Goa for two months.
As per the court order, five students, including the two petitioners, were alleged to have stolen potato chips, chocolates, sanitisers, pens, notepads, cellphone stands, two desk lamps, and three Bluetooth speakers from stalls during a conference on the college campus in November 2023.
After being caught, the students had claimed that they were under the impression that the items were abandoned there. As per the case papers, the students returned the items and apologised in writing for their conduct.
The standing panel of the institute had debarred all five students from registration for three semesters while imposing a fine of ₹50,000 on each of them. They challenged the decision before the director of the institution who revoked the cancellation of semesters for three students but maintained the fine.
However, in the case of two other students, the director maintained the ₹50,000 fine and said they wouldn’t be allowed to take exams during semester one (2023-24). The students then approached the high court.
During the hearing of the students’ petitions, the HC deferred its decision on two occasions to enable the BITS director to reconsider the punishment of cancellation of the semester. But that did not happen.
In its final order on Monday, the HC said it got the impression that the director was irked by the fact that the students had dared to seek court intervention against his decision. The judges said that though they were hurt by this approach of the “director of an Institute of Eminence”, they have refrained from saying anything more.
“... we are mindful that the two petitioners before us have to complete their education with the respondents for the next few years and not be scarred for life due to indiscretion or even indiscipline indulged by them on this one occasion,” they said in the order.
The judges said that ordinarily, courts must be slow to interfere with the internal affairs of a “university, particularly on issues concerning disciplinary proceedings against students”.
The HC said an institute cannot claim immunity on the principle that courts should be slow in interfering in such matters if it acts contrary to its own guidelines, ignores UGC (University Grants Commission) directives, discriminates between two sets of students and “breaches the principles of natural justice and fair play”.
“..When it is found that there is discrimination in a matter of imposition of penalties or, where the penalties imposed are in breach of guidelines enacted by the Institute itself or where the penalty imposed excludes considerations of reformation, the Institute cannot claim any immunity from judicial review,” said the court.
The court said there is not much material as such to distinguish between the role played by the petitioners and the other three students.
Still, accepting the institute's case that there was some difference, this is a fit case where the petitioners, in addition to payment of a fine of ₹50,000, must undertake community service for two hours each day for two months, the court said.
The Bench then directed the students to undertake community service at an old-age home near their institute at Majorda village in South Goa.
