Calcutta High Court Denies Interim Relief To 16-Year-Old Student Expelled Over Bullying Allegations, Declines Plea To Sit For Exams

The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a 16-year-old student seeking permission to sit for internal examinations after being expelled by a private school over allegations of bullying, while holding that the writ petition challenging the disciplinary action is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that any immediate direction permitting the student to appear in the examinations would effectively keep the expulsion order in abeyance without the Court even examining that order, which had not yet been placed on record.

“Any sort of restraint against the examination… would prejudice the entire batch of students,” the Court further observed, noting that the exams were scheduled to commence on April 23, 2026 and interference would affect several students.

The petitioner-student, enrolled in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP), had been suspended on January 23, 2026 following allegations that he, along with others, physically bullied a younger student on January 22, 2026. During the hearing, it was disclosed that the school had subsequently passed an order dated March 30, 2026 expelling him.

The petitioners urgently moved the Court after learning that examinations earlier expected in May had been preponed.

The respondent school opposed the petition, arguing that it was a private unaided institution not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that matters of discipline and administration fell within its autonomous domain.

Rejecting the objection, the Court held that imparting education is a public duty and actions affecting a student's right to receive education can be judicially reviewed.

“Any school while imparting education is undoubtedly embarking on the domain of a duty cast upon it involving public element and necessarily public wellbeing,” the Court observed.

It added that if a school acts arbitrarily while discharging such duty, a public law remedy under Article 226 would be available.

The school also contended that since the student was 16 years old, Article 21A would not apply, as it covers children between 6 and 14 years.

The Court held that while Article 21A may not directly apply, the right to education has been recognised by the Supreme Court as flowing from Article 21.

Declining interim relief, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of preserving the school's autonomy and protecting the interests of the larger body of students scheduled to take the examinations.

“At this stage directing the school to permit the petitioner no.1 to sit for the examination would result in… keeping the order of expulsion in abeyance,” the Court said.

To safeguard the student's academic future, the Court directed that if the petition ultimately succeeds, the school must permit him to take the examination later so that he does not lose an academic year.

The petitioners were granted liberty to file a supplementary affidavit placing the expulsion order and related documents on record.

Case Title: Avvya Todi v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 2929 of 2026

Click here to read order