'Court Is Temple Of Justice, Maintain Decorum': Gujarat HC Judge Objects To Attire Of College Girl In Courtroom

Stressing that it is essential to uphold the sanctity of the court, Justice Desai later remarked, "We all consider this to be a temple of justice and every religious place has its own tradition, rules and decency".

Justice Desai made these remarks while hearing a plea filed by the Master's student challenging who had moved the HC challenging her 1-semester suspension order. She was present in the Court, sitting beside the AoR Bhash Mankad and Senior Advocate Percy Kavina, representing her.

As soon as the hearing started, the bench asked the secretary to pause the live-streaming, and when the streaming resumed, Senior Advocate Kavina was heard submitting that her attire must not affect the Court's discretion and urged the bench to take up the matter on the merits.

To this submission, the judge orally said, "Everyone has a choice, correct, and everyone can exercise their option and choice, but it depends upon the place at which that person is visiting…The arrogance must not reflect in words or actions".

Senior Advocate Kavina quickly responded by saying,  "[The issue is] irrelevant…I would not like your lordship to be the person who comments on the attire of a person”

"…therefore for the first time in my life...if someone is coming to the court, he/she must be in proper attire", Justice Desai said.

After this, in an attempt to resolve the issue, the Senior Advocate requested that the Petitioner-Student leave the Courtroom. The judge agreed, stating, "First, let her exit the court".

After she left, Justice Desai remarked: "Every educational institution takes action on the basis of its approach towards life, discipline and adherence to the rules of the institution".

Later during the hearing, Justice Desai once again addressed his objection to the petitioner's attire. He orally said:

"I don't want to spoil any student's career, at the same time a student must know what is wrong is wrong and what is impermissible. See, I'm not against your client. At the same time, I must say, if not you, your AoR has failed to maintain the decorum and dignity of the Court…We all consider this to be temple of justice and every religious place has its own tradition, rules and decency".

Briefly, the student is facing charges of having a verbal/rude argument with an Institution staff member regarding a dispute over receiving a lower-tier grant of ₹40,000.

Importantly, the alleged disciplinary action was, inter alia, taken against her after she was found in possession of a male acquaintance's hostel room key.

She was also accused of making several complaints to the ICC. She was punished by being handed a 1-semester suspension for the academic year 2025-26 and was also asked to vacate her hostel. Even her registration was also cancelled.

In her defence, Sr Advocate Kavina argued that while discipline is constant, "behaviour, social norms, what was unthinkable when my parents were young, is the norm now, and what was unthinkable when I was in college has become the norm now."

He also added that since the male student was abroad at the time, there was no question of "improper conduct" on the part of the petitioner and that she had merely gone to his room to retrieve some of her materials.

He further pointed out that the institution's orientation code makes it clear that Master's students are "grown adults", that there is no hostel segregation, and that boys and girls do go to each other's hostel rooms at all times of the day.

Challenging this action, Kavina argued that the petitioner had already completed her entire term with good marks and the only remaining requirement was the submission of her MA thesis. Terming the cancellation of her registration as 'punishment upon punishment', Kavina urged the Court to intervene in the matter and grant her the relief.

However, Justice Desai expressed strong reservations about the petitioner-student's conduct and attitude towards the authorities of her Institution.

The bench was ultimately of the view that the matter must be resolved so that the petitioner-student's academic career could be saved. Hence, Kavina proposed tendering a comprehensive and 'unambiguous' written apology on behalf of the petitioner.

"It [Apology] should be something which will discourage every other student…I am on discipline of institution... so no other student should encourage that come what may, even if we misbehave, even if we don't follow the rules, the moment we approach the court, every act will be condoned and we'll be allowed to do whatever we want. That message must not go,” Justice Desai said.

Kavina submitted that he will obtain a comprehensive statement in which the petitioner will be unambiguous in her apology.

Satisfied with the assurance that a proper apology would be placed on record, the Court agreed to hear the matter further. However, before parting with the matter for the day, Justice Desai remarked thus:

"One such act must not encourage others to do the same...jo beet gayi so baat gayi...she must start with a mindset that she is also a human animal...we all live in a society and society always creates certain boundaries and one must not cross it..."

The Court posted the matter for a hearing day after tomorrow after issuing notice to the Institution.