Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
1 WP-22258-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 22258 of 2025
JITENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jayesh Gurnani - Advocate for petitioner.
Dr. Amit Bhatia - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Tarang Chelawat - Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
(Reserved on :- 09.09.2025)
(Pronounced on :- 09.10.2025)
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. Directions/order may kindly be passed and the Respondent 3 and 4 may
kindly be directed to ensure the strict compliance of the order passed by the
Respondent no. 2 Board.
b. Respondent no. 5 may kindly be directed to cancel the termination of Master
(ward of the Petitioner) from the school and to permit him to attend the classes
of 10th.
c. The Respondent no 2 and 5 may kindly be directed to take penal action
against the authorities of the Respondent no. 5 School in view of provisions of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
d. The Respondent no.1 may kindly directed to take appropriate action against
the Respondent no 3 to 4 for noncompliance of the orders/ directions of
Respondent no 2.
e. To allow the petition with costs.
f. Any other relief, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, also be granted to the
Petitioner."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
2 WP-22258-2025
02. As per the petitioner, his son was a student of Class 9 th in
respondent No.5 school which is affiliated to ICSE/ISC Board. On
04.02.2025 petitioner received a telephone call from office of the school and
when he reached there he was informed that his son along with two fellow
students had created a page in social media platform Instagram in the name
of school and had posted memes of teachers. Petitioner's son was also called
in the office of the director where he admitted his mischievous act and
pleaded apology with promise not to repeat any such kind of act in future.
Petitioner also tendered his apology to the school and staff. He was then
asked to take his son home and was told that he would receive further
directions soon. When petitioner reached home, his son showed him a letter
given by the school staff to him which was a Transfer Certificate with bad
character without any signature and seal but showed the intention of the
school to expel him. On 11.02.2025 petitioner was telephonically informed
that his son will only be permitted to appear in annual examination of Class
9 th but will not be permitted to attend the classes and would also not be
permitted further studies in the school from class 10th onwards. The
petitioner submitted representation on 11.02.2025 through email to the
Principal of the school for considering the case of his son
sympathetically. The school responded reiterating the stand taken by it
earlier.
03. On 13.02.2025 the petitioner again sent an email to the school to
permit his son for further studies which was refused on 17.02.2025 by an
email. The petitioner was also sent a letter dated 17.02.2025 in which it was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
3 WP-22258-2025
stated that his son is being terminated from the school and shall be allowed
to appear in the final examinations only and till then he would be suspended
from the school. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation to
respondent No.2, M.P. State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
which took cognizance of the matter. Subsequently, a team comprising
members of respondent No.2 and the Collector, respondent No.4, visited the
school and issued an order on 03.04.2025 not to terminate petitioner's son
from the school and also directed the school for counselling the children.
Despite the same, the school did not permit his son to join the school on
which respondent No.2 directed for action to be taken in the matter. His son
appeared and cleared the Class 9th examination but on 17.04.2025 an email
was received from the school informing the petitioner that it is not accepting
the decision of respondent No.2 and asked him to collect the marksheet as
well as the Transfer Certificate of his son. The school is neither accepting the
order passed by respondent No.2 nor the apology of the petitioner and his son
hence this petition.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the school
was bound to follow the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2
which is an instrumentality of the State. Respondents No.3 and 4 are also not
ensuring compliance of the order. The acts of respondents No.3 and 5 are in
violation to Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, Section 16 of the Right
to Education Act, 2009 and also Section 24 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the 'Act, 2015') which provides for
protection of a child from any kind of disqualification even if he is found
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
4 WP-22258-2025
guilty of an offence by Court of law. The petitioner as well as his son have
already tendered apologies to the school as well as before members of
respondent No.2, Board. Petitioner's son has already been punished for his
acts by suspension for entire remaining educational session. Further
punishment of termination from school will ruin his future and would also
adversely effect his mental state which would amount to cruelty upon him.
He is not mentally developed enough to understand the gravity of his
mischievous acts. He had already been enrolled for examination of Class
10th with respondent No.5 school and if he is to be shifted to some other
school, it will be difficult to get him registered for examination of Class 10th
in current educational year. It is hence submitted that the petition be allowed.
05. Reply has been filed by respondent No.5 school and learned
counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the school authorities
observed that three students including petitioner's son were operating an
Instagram page wherein personal photographs of teachers were used without
permission. Derogatory memes using abusive language and communal
references targeting a teacher of a particular faith were posted. School's
official image and name was misused. Revengeful, vulgar and rebellious
attitude was shown against the institution. The memes were put to create
insecure atmosphere for teachers and in the chats, the students were having a
conversation to misuse photos of other girls and boys of the school.
A disciplinary committee was constituted comprising senior faculty and
administrative members to investigate the matter during which all three
students admitted their misconduct and offered a written apology. All of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
5 WP-22258-2025
them were permitted to appear for final examination. However, it was clearly
communicated to their parents that they shall not be permitted to continue in
the next academic session in view of seriousness of their conduct. To ensure
that petitioner's son can get admission in any other good school, there were
no bad remarks given on his Transfer Certificate which clearly shows that the
school does not aim to disturb his future. The teachers have categorically
stated not to allow the students in the school considering their misconduct
and effect on their moral and influence on other students. Allowing
indisciplined students after repetitive warnings and counselling would set a
bad example for other students. Petitioner was previously informed on
multiple occasions over past two years about disruptive behavior of his son
including bullying, aggression towards peers and insubordination.
Counselling efforts were regularly undertaken but in vain. The petitioner has
been using his influence of being a journalist to ensure that his son gets back
in the school. School's decision is not punitive but administrative and
disciplinary in nature and does not amount to expulsion but non-renewal of
enrollment after academic year, post disciplinary misconduct. Private,
unaided institutions are entitled to regulate admission, discipline and
administration. It is further submitted that the Commission for Protection of
Child Rights Act, 2005 (the 'Act, 2005') does not make any recommendation
of the Commission binding upon the school which is merely recommendary
in nature and upon considering the overall facts of the case, the school has
decided not to continue petitioner's son in the school. The school has been
continuously writing to the petitioner to collect the Transfer Certificate but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
6 WP-22258-2025
he has not done so. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the
Karnataka High Court in Manisha Sharma Vs. Karnataka State
Commissioner for Protection of Child Rights and Another, 2023 SCC Online
Kar 6, of the Kerela High Court in Sebastian T. Joseph and Another Vs.
Kerela State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Others 2017
SCC Online Ker 21669, of the Madras High Court in V.S. Babaramesh Vs.
Central Board of Secondary Education and Others, 2015 SCC Online Mad
5726 and of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of
Karnataka 2002 (8) SCC 481 and P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2005 (6) SCC 537.
06. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
07. Heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon the order
dated 17.04.2025 passed by M.P. State Commission for Protection of Child
Rights to contend that the school is bound to comply with the same. Under
the Act, 2005, Commissions have been established in all the States and legal
effect of their orders has been under consideration before various Courts.
While dealing with an order passed by Karnataka State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights, the Karnataka High Court in Manisha Sharma
(Supra) has held that the Commission is an advisory body and it can frame or
suggest policy decisions with respect to child's rights but the Act does not
empower the Commission to adjudicate any lis between two parties. It was
held as under:-
"10. Suffice it to note that the Commission for the Karnataka State
Commission for the Protection of Child Rights is a statutory authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
7 WP-22258-2025
established under the 2005 Act. Section 13 of the Act enumerates the functions
of the Commission. A perusal of the same makes it very clear that the
Commission is an advisory body and it could frame or suggest policy decisions
with respect to the child's rights to the State Government. The Act does not
empower and conferred with any power of adjudication or to decide adversarial
proceedings. The commission has no power to adjudicate any lis between two
parties."
08. Similarly, the Kerala High Court in Sebastian T. Joseph (Supra)
while dealing with a similar situation has held that the power of the
Commission is only recommendary in nature. It was held as under:-
"24. Therefore, it can be seen that, if at all any power is conferred on the
1st respondent, the same is only recommendatory in nature, recommending to
the Government for grant of such interim relief to the victim or the members of
his family. That apart, the definition given to "child rights" in Sec.2(b) and the
reference to the relevant provisions of Ext.P16 of United Nations Conventions,
I am of the considered opinion that, the inquiry of the 1st respondent
contemplated under Act, 2005 is confining to the areas referred to in Ext.P16,
which will not in any manner take care of a situation like the one on hand, in
respect to the maintenance of the discipline in the school. The Principal of the
school is the guardian of the school, who is vested with powers to take
necessary action to maintain the discipline and morality in the school, which
cannot be interfered or tinkered with by the 1 st respondent. So much so, it is a
well recognised proposition in law, as laid down by the Apex Court in various
judgements and specifically in the following judgements, Vice Chancellor,
Guru Ghasidas University v. Craig Mcleod [(2012) 11 SCC 275], Director
(Studies) v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan [ (2009) 1 SCC 59] and Varanasaya
Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya v. Rajkishore Tripathi (Dr.) [(1977) 1 SCC 279].
28. After evaluating the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the
considered opinion that, the 1st respondent did not have any power to pass an
interim order directing the school to permit the 2nd respondent to continue with
the classes, and comply with such consequential actions. I reiterate that the
power conferred under Sec.14 of Act, 2005 is only in respect of the power
under the Code of Civil Procedure while conducting enquiry during the trial
proceedings. In that view of the matter, Ext.P15 interim order passed by the
1st respondent has no manner of legal sustenance, the same being arbitrary and
illegal and accordingly exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, I quash Ext.P15 order passed by the 1st respondent
dated 03.10.2017, and the writ petition is disposed with the above
observations."
09. Thus, it is evident that a Commission constituted under the Act,
2005 only possesses power of making recommendation and giving
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
8 WP-22258-2025
suggestions. It has no power of adjudicating any lis between two contesting
parties and deciding adversarial proceedings. The contention of the petitioner
that the school is bound to comply with the order passed by the Commission
hence cannot be accepted. The said order can at best be regarded to be
advisory or recommendary in nature, leaving it open for the school either to
accept or not to accept the same.
10. In the available facts of the case, the school has taken a conscious
decision that it would not accept the order passed by the Commission.
Reasons have been given in detail for not accepting the order. For the
discussion as made hereinafter, it cannot be said that the said decision of
school is unjustified in any manner.
11. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the school has
violated Section 24 of the Act, 2015 which provides for protection of a child
from any kind of disqualification even if he is found guilty of any offence by
a Court of law. However, the said Section and the Act, 2015 itself is wholly
inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not a case where
petitioner's son has been found involved in any crime. There is no criminal
prosecution launched against him. Instead, disciplinary action has been taken
against him. He has not been assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or
willfully neglected to be assaulted, abandoned, abused or exposed in a
manner likely to cause him unnecessary mental or physical suffering. The
action taken by the school is on the basis of his indiscipline and is well
within its rights hence it cannot be said that any wrong has been done upon
petitioner's son. Likewise, the Right to Education Act, 2009 and M.P. Bal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
9 WP-22258-2025
Sanrakshan Niti, 2020 relied upon by the petitioner are also not applicable in
the present case since they do not contain any provision dealing with the
issue as raised herein.
12. The legal principle that Principal of the School is its guardian who
is vested with powers to take necessary action to maintain the discipline and
morality in the school is well recognized proposition of law as has been laid
down by the Apex Court, amongst others, in Vice-Chancellor, Guru
Ghasidas University Vs. Craig Mcleod, 2012 (11) SCC 275 and Director
(Studies) Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chouhan, 2009 (1) SCC 59. The Madras High
Court in V. S. Babaramesh (Supra) has further elaborated the said principle
as under:-
"17. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent lay down the proposition that it is the primary responsibility of the
Head of the Institution to see that discipline is maintained in the college and
after placing reliance upon the decision in Unni Raja v. Principal, Medical
College, Trivandrum [AIR 1983 Ker 200] which has held that the essence of
the matter is that the head of the institution should in law be presumed to
possess an inherent right to do such acts as are necessary in his opinion to
maintain discipline in the institution and this right is incapable of an exhaustive
identification. To limit it within defined confines would be to erode into his
authority and fetter his discretion and to deny his right to the head of the
institution would be sound the death-knell of discipline in the institution which
is already a casualty, by the combination of diverse forces, from within and
from without.
19. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. K.S. Gandhi [(1991) 2 SCC 716], it has been held that the power
of judicial review in case of student indiscipline is very limited and in such
cases, the High Court does not sit in appeal over decisions of the school
authorities.
20. In A. Maharaja v. Anna University [(2009) 4 MLJ 1048], the facts of the
case read that the petitioners along with their friends went out of the college at
about 10.00 a.m. on a particular day and returned at 3.00 p.m. and they have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
10 WP-22258-2025
signed in the outgoing and incoming registers maintained by the hostel warden
to attend a treat given by one of their friends for a birthday party and since they
came later, the mess people refused to serve food and there was a wordy
quarrel and the mess master came there and directed the workers to give food
and they had their lunch. When the warden came to the mess, he seized their
cellphones which contained a photograph saying "cheers" while having drinks.
The petitioners therein were suspended and immediately all of them gave
letters of apology stating that such incidents would not happen in future. The
parents of the students were also summoned and they met them and they were
instructed to advise their wards properly and later on the Principal had issued
Transfer Certificates with an endorsement "Discontinued" and it was put to
challenge in the said writ petition. The learned Judge, while dealing with the
said case, also placed reliance upon the decision in Headmaster, Polikav High
School, P.O. Edakkulam Quliandy v. Murali A. [AIR 1995 Ker 21] has
observed as follows:
"From the above judgments, it is well settled that if a student, does not
maintain discipline which is expected from him, it is not required for the
college to retain him in the college. Insofar as the procedure to be
followed in the matter of conducting an enquiry into misconduct or
indiscipline of a student, Courts have consistently held that it is not
required to have a detailed enquiry as that of a departmental proceeding
in service matters. It is the consistent view of the Courts that the power
of the educational institutions should not be disturbed in trying to
maintain discipline in the institutions and it is suffice, that there is
substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice."
21. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that adherence of discipline
among students has become a casualty and a teacher practically cannot do
anything to discipline a student. The judgments cited above lay down the
proposition that the discipline to be enforced in an educational institution is
very important as it shapes the career and future welfare of the students. Insofar
as compliance of principles of natural justice is concerned, it has been held that
a pupil against whom disciplinary action has been taken by the head of an
educational institution cannot insist that principles of natural justice should be
strictly complied with and there is a substantial difference between an enquiry
in a disciplinary action against a civil servant and that in a disciplinary action
against a pupil of an educational institution."
13. Since the present is also a case of student indiscipline, power of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
11 WP-22258-2025
judicial review is very limited and this Court cannot sit in appeal over
decision of the school authorities and the jurisdiction is limited to
considering the fact whether the decision taken by the school is arbitrary or
illegal.
14. For the purpose of demonstrating the acts of petitioner's son on the
basis of which action has been taken against him, screenshots, chats and
extracts of Instagram postings have been submitted by learned counsel for
respondent No.5 in a separate sealed cover as it may hinder his future and
may effect his further studies. The said envelope has been opened and
examined by this Court and the contents thereof perused and after passing of
this order are being returned to the counsel for respondent No.5.
15. A perusal of the material so produced shows that the conduct of
petitioner's son has been of high indiscipline. He has created memes of one
of his own teachers on religious lines and has posted about him along with
his photograph with a caption which is quite derogatory in nature and tends
to offend his religious feelings and sentiments. The same uses abusive
language and communal references targeting teacher of a particular faith.
The photograph of the teacher was used without permission. The school's
official image and name was also misused in violation of the norms. The tone
and content of the post reflects a revengeful, vulgar and rebellious attitude.
The chats which have taken place on the basis of the said post are highly
abusive in nature. There is also a photograph of another teacher of the school
along with a dog trying to depict their similarity which is wholly
unacceptable. A lady teacher has been shown as a Spiderwoman flying in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
12 WP-22258-2025
air. Another lady teacher is shown as Iron Lady and one teacher has been
called to be a real male. Fun has been made of a lady teacher on the basis of
her physique. Another lady teacher has been shown to be "Bitter Gourd"
and so on and so forth.
16. It is clear that there is not just one meme or post but there are a
series of the same hence the acts of petitioner's son cannot be said to be a
stray incident. It shows a pattern of behavior. The posts show use of abusive
language against the school and also an attitude of taking revenge from the
school against some of its action. Names of some of the girls of the school
are also found in the chats and suggestion has been given for maligning
them.
17. From the material produced by respondent No.5, it cannot be said
that acts of petitioner's son are that of a misguided child or a child who is not
able to understand the seriousness of his mischievous acts. He, on the
contrary, shows sufficient mental development enough to understand the
gravity of his acts hence the apology tendered by him and the petitioner
cannot come to his rescue. In any case the apologies which have been
tendered are qualified in nature and not unequivocal. The action which has
hence been taken by the school cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any
manner looking to the gross indiscipline of petitioner's son.
18. Along with the reply, respondent No.5 has also filed a copy of
Transfer Certificate of petitioner's son. This Certificate has not been taken by
the petitioner or his son and in the reply, respondent No.5 has categorically
stated that it is ready and willing to hand over the same to the petitioner. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29500
13 WP-22258-2025
a simple Transfer Certificate without any comment on character of
petitioner's son hence the apprehension of the petitioner that he would find it
difficult to get admission in some other school is baseless. In the Transfer
Certificate, it is stated that petitioner's son was admitted to the school with a
good character. The earlier Transfer Certificate in which he was shown to be
of a bad character has been deleted. There is now no reason as to why the
petitioner and his son should not receive the certificate from the school and
take admission in some other school. The earlier decision of termination of
petitioner's son from the school in view of this Transfer Certificate hence
pales into insignificance and is not an impediment for him to seek admission
in some other school.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that
respondent No.5 school has committed any illegality in deciding not to
continue petitioner's son for studies in Class 10th and in issuing the Transfer
Certificate to him. The petition is consequently found to be devoid of any
merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
