Jang Bahadur Sant Lal vs The Principal, Mohindra College

Teja Singh, C.J.—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.

The Petitioner has now made an application u/s 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.

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.

I concede that the rights guaranteed by Section 19 are valuable and every citizen of India can insist that be should be left free to exercise them, but as the very words of Clauses 2 to 6 would go to show, they are limited by certain qualifications. I am also of the opinion that apart from the qualifications enumerated in Clauses 2 to 6 of the Articles, they are also subject to the qualification that the exercise of these rights by a citizen should not infringe the rights of others. For example, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle would not include the right to move and reside and settle in a private property of come one else. Let us take another illustration. The Military and quasi-Military departments like the Police lay great value upon discipline, and the breaches of discipline are always punished sternly. Now suppose, some member of the military force took into his head to denounce the activities of his Commander or other high officer to whom he was subordinate, and condemned him for inefficiency, communalism, hooliganism etc. Surely, if the military authorities haul him up for this conduct of his and holding that it amounted to a grave breach of discipline, award him some punishment, he cannot invoke the aid of the Constitution and have the orders set aside on the ground that he had every right to give expression to his opinion, because such a right was guaranteed to him by Article 19. Blackstone has aptly remarked that

every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: ...but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences.

The relationship between a pupil and a teacher has always been held to be sacred in India, and it is in the interests of students as well as of the entire body of citizens that discipline amongst students is insisted upon. If students are allowed to condemn their teachers openly and with impunity, discipline is bound to go to doge and no teacher will be able to discharge the sacred duty with which he is entrusted. It is for this reason that in every civilized State, Heads of educational institutions have been given ample and in some cases drastic powers to deal with cases of proved breach of discipline. That the present was the worst case of its kind will be clear from the following quotation taken from the paragraph of the hand bill with which it deals with the Mohindra College.

The lot of the Premier College in Pepsu conspicuously speaks for itself. The gross substantive intermediate result this year (1950) are simply 29 per cent the lowest minimum conceivable. None of the students has come up in the order of merit list. Whose collar should not be caught? Handicaps and obstruction are placed even in the celebration of national festivals as Republic Day celebration, communalists and hooliganists are encouraged by the authorities in order to achieve their selfish evils. Moral degeneration has become the symptom of college life. Authorities have become a party to the widespread intrigue in the college. The reign of subversive and heinous activities is in progress. Students have been deprived of their due and just rights. Their just demands are not conceded. Thus suppression is the apparent symbol in the administration and colleges. Victimisation and penalisation of innocent students on large scale stops at the natural and harmonous growth of the community at large.

It is true that there is no express mention of the Principal or other teachers of the College, but undoubtedly the term ''authorities'' includes the ''Principal'' and I should think the Heads of various departments also. The Petitioner''s counsel half-heartedly argued that they are not accused of anything very serious, but I find it impossible to agree with him, A mere perusal of the paragraph quoted above should show that there is not a crime of which the authorities are not accused, and what the writer has tried to make out is that they are not only antinationalist, but selfish, evil-minded, morally degenerate and given to intrigue, subversive and heinous activities and victimization of innocent students etc. etc. Frankly, my opinion is that had the Principal failed to take any action, he would have exposed himself to serious criticism for inaction and (dereliction?) of duty. Apart from this, I wish to add that even if we ignore the requirements of discipline, the hand-bill offends against the ordinary law of the land, inasmuch as it is highly defamatory to the Principal and the Heads of Departments of the College and the accusations levelled against them must disgrace them in the eyes of the students and the public. It was urged that the allegations were correct, but, in my opinion, truth cannot be a defence in a case of this kind; because if the Petitioner believed, that he had a genuine grievance, the proper coarse for him was to approach the higher educational authorities and the government rather than to bring out a hand bill.

For all these reasons I hold that there is no substance in the petition and dismiss it.