Facts of the Case
‘A’ is a student enrolled in a college that is either government-run, government-aided, or affiliated to a statutory university. Due to alleged misconduct or violation of college rules, the college authorities took disciplinary action against him, such as suspension, expulsion, rustication, or cancellation of admission. The action was taken without giving proper notice, opportunity of hearing, or following prescribed disciplinary procedures. Aggrieved by the arbitrary decision, ‘A’ approached the High Court seeking relief by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the college authorities as illegal, unreasonable, and violative of principles of natural justice.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the college authorities are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the disciplinary action taken against student ‘A’ violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether educational institutions performing public duties can be subjected to judicial review.
- Whether the student ‘A’ is entitled to relief through issuance of an appropriate writ.
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgments
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Courts have wide powers to issue writs not only against the State but also against authorities performing public or statutory duties. In Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989), the Supreme Court held that writs can be issued against private bodies if they perform public functions.
Educational institutions, especially those aided, affiliated, or governed by statutory regulations, discharge public duties and are therefore subject to judicial review. Further, administrative actions affecting civil rights must comply with principles of natural justice, namely audi alteram partem (right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause).
In Board of High School v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta (1962) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the courts emphasized that arbitrariness and absence of fair procedure render administrative action invalid. Disciplinary action against students must follow fairness, transparency, and reasonableness.
Possible Judgment
The court is likely to hold that the college authorities are amenable to writ jurisdiction, as they perform public functions in the field of education. If the disciplinary action was taken without issuing notice or providing an opportunity of hearing, it would amount to a violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court may issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order and a writ of mandamus directing the college to reconsider the matter by following due process of law. Thus, student ‘A’ would be entitled to appropriate relief.
About lawgnan
Problem questions on writ jurisdiction, natural justice, and administrative action are common in LLB examinations. Clear understanding of judicial review over educational institutions helps students score high in Administrative Law. For more exam-ready case analyses, writ petition problem answers, constitutional principles, and simplified legal explanations, visit lawgana.in. LawGana provides structured legal content specially designed for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive exams. Follow lawgana.in today to master Administrative Law with clarity and confidence.
