In first case taken via open-access video conferencing, Bombay High Court grants ad-interim relief to law student challenging expulsion

In the first case taken up by the Bombay High Court this afternoon via a publicly accessible online Zoom meeting hosted on an experimental basis, Justice GS Patel awarded a first-year law student ad-interim relief in a plea filed against her expulsion from the college..Appearing for the petitioner student, Advocate Mohit Bharadwaj told the Court that the petitioner and her parents were not informed of the grounds for expulsion..Apart from arguing that there was no clear disclosure of material forming the basis of the rustication order, Bharadwaj submitted that the petitioner was also denied an opportunity to be heard and that the disproportionate action of exclusion was thereafter taken against her..Appearing for the respondent-college authorities, Advocate Manorama Mohanty told the Court that the college had acted on certain Instagram posts informing that the petitioner had smoked cannabis on the college campus..Mohanty denied the allegation that the petitioner was not informed of the same, and further submitted that an internal inquiry was conducted before expulsion. During this inquiry, Mohanty also submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard, during which time the petitioner had also admitted to the allegation and sought for forgiveness..On the other hand, Bharadwaj told the Court that there were other students in the college who had shown a propensity to boast on social media about the availability of drugs on the campus. However, he asserted that the petitioner was not involved in the same. .Further, he also showed the Court email correspondence between the petitioner’s father and the college authorities wherein the authorities were asked to furnish relevant documents and the basis on which the petitioner was suspended..In view of these arguments, Justice Patel quizzed the counsel for the College authorities over the absence of material before the Court concerning any proper procedure that was followed before the petitioner was expelled. He orally remarked,.“You must follow some degree of formality.. you’re not only dealing with suspension, you’re dealing with rustication.. your processes have to be open and transparent, it cannot be done like this.”Oral observation by Justice GS Patel.Mohanty, in turn, informed the Court that there are documents to support the actions of the college, including information regarding the social media posts on the basis of which the expulsion order was passed. However, the same could not be accessed presently, since the college is closed amid the COVID-19 lockdown..In the order dictated subsequently, the Court noted that "Without seeing material on other side, it is impossible to resolve this issue.”.All the same, the Court opined that it is imperative that some protection is given to petitioner in case she later succeeds in her case. This was given that the expulsion cannot be rolled back later if the petitioner’s plea is allowed subsequently..Therefore, Justice Patel granted ad-interim relief, effectively suspending the expulsion and allowing the student to take her internal exams. .The Court, however, clarified that this ad-interim relief is subject to what the Court says when it takes up the matter after normal functioning resumes and when it has the opportunity to examine the documents produced by the College to justify its decision..In this regard, Justice Patel emphasised that the petition has not even been admitted, and that all questions including the maintainability of the plea, would remain open. .Inter alia, the petitioner’s counsel has also been informed that he would have to satisfy the Court as to applicability of its writ jurisdiction in the matter.