JANG BAHADUR SANT LAL Vs. THE PRINCIPAL, MOHINDRA COLLEGE
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jang Bahadur Sant Lal
The Principal, Mohindra College
Click here to view full judgement.
Teja Singh, J. -
(1.) THE Petitioner, Jang Bahadur, is a student of the M.A. final class of the Mohindra College, Patiala. He claims to be the organizer of a body called 'The Students Congress, Patiala' and in that capacity issued and printed the hand -bill, 'A call to the Students,' in which he attacked, in the first place, the education policy of the Union Government and, in the second, condemned the authorities of the Mohindra College, for what he considered to be their anti -nationalistic and communalistic outlook and for encouraging hooliganism, moral degeneration and wide -spread intrigue etc. When the hand -bill came to the notice of the Principal of the College, he called upon him to express regret for having published and circulated it, and when the Petitioner failed to do this, he rusticated him for one year with effect from 15 -7 -1950.
(2.) THE Petitioner has now made an application under Section 226, Constitution of India, and Section 60, Judicature Ordinance No. 10 of 2005, for issue of a writ of mandamus cancelling the order made by the Principal, and directing him to forbear from enforcing the said order. It is admitted by the Petitioner's counsel that the Head of an educational institution has an inherent power to expel a student for breach of discipline or for other adequate reasons. The counsel also concedes that power of expulsion includes the power to rusticate a student for a year. Rules regarding rustication and expulsion of students are contained in Chap. XVII of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, which have been adopted by the East Punjab University to which Mohindra College is affiliated. They, too assume that principals of affiliated colleges have the power to impose rustication on their students and lay down that all such cases should be reported to the University for registration and notification.
(3.) WHAT , however, learned Counsel for the Petitioner maintains is that the Petitioner, by virtue of Article 19, Constitution of India, had the right of freedom of speech and expression, and the Principal by penalizing him for publishing or circulating the handbill, which contained his opinion about the activities of the College authorities, interfered with that right, and consequently his order was liable to be set aside. Clause (1) of the Article reads as follows:
All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India:
(f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; and
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Clauses 2 to 6 lay down the limits to which the rights mentioned in Clause (1) would be limited by the State.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.