HC gives errant Class XII student a second chance

On a video screen in the high court, a nervous Class XII student sat beside his mother, assuring Justice Kuldeep Tiwari that he would “mend his ways” and never repeat his past misconduct. The moment came as the Punjab and Haryana High Court virtually stepped in as parens patriae, choosing to give the boy another chance rather than let his academic future collapse under the weight of repeated disciplinary notices.

“During the interaction, the petitioner/minor child has assured this Court, that he will mend his ways, and he will not repeat such misconduct, in future,” Justice Tiwari said.

The Bench also made it clear that the conditions mentioned by the school in Gurugram to allow the minor join the classes, including no further instance of bullying, aggression, harassment, indiscipline, or violation of the school code, were rational and acceptable.

The student, represented by counsel Viren Sibal, had challenged three show-cause notices issued by his school on July 31, August 6 and August 21, citing alleged consistent unruly behaviour. Sibal told the Court he would not join issue on the merits and that “his concern is only the future of the child… there shall be no repetition of the misbehaviour or misconduct, on the part of the petitioner/minor.”

The counsel for the school and the other respondents, on the other hand, maintained that their concern was “maintaining discipline in school, and the welfare of the fellow students,” stressing that repeated incidents of violence and misbehaviour had left them with no choice but to act.

Sensing the gravity of the situation, Justice Tiwari asked the boy and his mother to appear in the post-lunch session. Agreeing to take him back, the school laid down strict terms, which the court incorporated into its ruling. These included undertaking against repetition of misconduct and understanding of consequences that “any future act of serious misconduct shall lead to strict disciplinary action, including immediate expulsion, without any further show cause or leniency”.

The court declined to accept additional restrictions sought by the school, such as limited participation in activities and denial of any assurance on character certificates or recommendation letters.