The Allahabad High Court has set aside a direction requiring a university student to publicly carry a placard declaring that he would “never misbehave with any girl,” holding that such a condition was humiliating and capable of causing lasting damage to the student’s character.
The court ruled that while disciplinary control by educational institutions is permissible, punitive measures that stigmatise a student in public cannot be justified under constitutional powers.
Case Details
- Case Title: Harsh Awana v. Chairman, U.G.C., Bahadurshah Zafar Road & Ors.
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Arun Bhansali (Chief Justice) and Kshitij Shailendra, J.
- Case No.: Special Appeal Defective No. 80 of 2026
- Date of Judgment: February 4, 2026
- Coram: Chief Justice’s Court
Background of the Dispute
The appeal arose from an order dated October 29, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 36011 of 2025.
The Single Judge had set aside the rustication of the appellant, a university student, but imposed a set of conditions, failure of which could result in his rustication being revived.
The appellant challenged specifically direction no. (II) of the Single Judge’s order, contending that it was humiliating in nature and would “perpetually affect his career.”
The university supported the impugned order, arguing that the writ petition itself was not maintainable and that the directions were issued on humanitarian considerations.
The appeal was filed with a delay of 57 days, which the Division Bench condoned after allowing the application for condonation of delay.
Directions Issued by the Single Judge
While setting aside the rustication, the Single Judge had recorded that the appellant’s father was “a poor farmer” and that “with great difficulty, the appellant is allowed to study with respondent-university.”
Exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Single Judge issued multiple directions.
Among them, direction no. (II) required:
“Petitioner will carry a play card with message that he will never misbehave with any girl. Petitioner will stand at the Gate of University carrying the aforesaid play card for 30 minutes, i.e., from 08.45 AM to 09.15 AM for 30 days commencing from 03.11.2025. The Respondent-University will take a photograph of aforesaid act. In case of default, Respondent-University is at liberty to rusticate petitioner.”
Other directions related to attendance requirements, filing of a written apology, and deployment of an anti-romeo squad at the university gates.
High Court’s Observations on the Impugned Direction
After examining the record and hearing counsel for both sides, the Division Bench upheld most of the directions issued by the Single Judge, including those relating to attendance, apology, and police deployment.
However, it expressed strong disapproval of direction no. (II).
The court recorded in clear terms:
“Nature of direction no. (II), which has been passed by learned Single Judge, is not justified under any circumstances.”
Elaborating further, the Bench held:
“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.”
The court emphasised that even where a student’s conduct warrants disciplinary oversight, corrective measures must not cross into public shaming or lifelong stigmatization.
Findings and Final Directions
In view of its findings, the Division Bench set aside direction no. (II) of the Single Judge’s order. The court further clarified the consequences flowing from this decision.
It directed that if the appellant had been rusticated again solely due to default in complying with direction no. (II), He must be given one opportunity to comply with direction no. (III), which required filing a written apology.
The court ordered:
“On compliance/if already complied with, the rustication shall stand set aside, the appellant shall sincerely follow direction No. (I).”
With these observations and modifications, the special appeal was disposed of.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
