Allahabad High Court Deems Placard Punishment for Noida Student Unjustified and Humiliating
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a controversial punishment that required a student from Noida International University to stand with a placard outside the campus for 30 minutes daily over 30 days. The division bench, led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and comprising Justice Kshitij Shailendra, delivered the order on Wednesday, stating that such a directive was "unjustified and uncalled for."
Background of the Case: Rustication and Legal Challenges
The student, who is pursuing a BSc in Medical Laboratory Technology (BSc MLT), was rusticated by the university on March 30 last year. The rustication was based on allegations of misbehaving with women students from another university, with the institution claiming to have video recordings as evidence. Following his rustication, the student filed a petition in the High Court challenging the decision.
On October 29 last year, a single bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery set aside the rustication order but imposed several conditions and directions. The single judge noted that the student's conduct appeared "not bona fide" and highlighted his poor attendance record, which was less than 50% in previous academic years. The order also referenced the seriousness of the misconduct, including misbehaving with girl students and bunking classes.
The Controversial Placard Punishment
Among the five directions issued by the single bench, the second one required the student to carry a placard with the message: "I will never misbehave with any girl." He was instructed to stand at the university gate from 8:45 am to 9:15 am for 30 consecutive days, starting November 3, 2025. The university was authorized to photograph the act, and failure to comply would result in rustication.
Other directions included:
- Filing a notarized affidavit committing to attend 95% of remaining classes and not leave the premises during class hours.
- Issuing a written apology to the university.
- Deployment of an anti-romeo mobile squad by police at the gates of the two universities.
- Communication of the order to the police by the standing counsel.
Division Bench's Ruling: Setting Aside Humiliating Punishment
The student appealed against the single bench's order, and the division bench heard the case on February 4. His counsel argued that the placard punishment was not only humiliating but would also permanently damage his career. In contrast, the university's counsel supported the previous order.
After considering the submissions, the division bench upheld most of the single judge's directions, noting they were justified given the student's conduct and attendance issues. However, the bench strongly criticized the placard punishment, stating:
"Direction of such nature, wherein the appellant would carry a placard with a message that he will never misbehave with any girl and stand at the gate of the university... 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 bench emphasized that such a punishment could have long-lasting negative effects on the student's reputation and future prospects. Consequently, it set aside the second direction while maintaining the others, thereby providing relief to the student from what it deemed an excessive and degrading penalty.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing disciplinary actions with human dignity, ensuring that punishments do not cross the line into humiliation or permanent character damage.
