'Revengeful & Vulgar': MP High Court Upholds Expulsion Of School Student For Posting Derogatory, Abusive Content About Teacher Online

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Thursday (October 9) dismissed a father's plea challenging school's decision to expel his child following the discovery of an Instagram page where the boy created and posted memes of teachers using abusive and derogatory language. Noting that the school was justified in their actions, the bench of Justice Pranay Verma observed;"A perusal of the material so produced shows that the conduct of petitioner's son has been of high indiscipline. He has created memes of one of his own teachers on religious lines and has posted about him along with his photograph with a caption which is quite derogatory in nature and tends to offend his religious feelings and sentiments. The same uses abusive language and communal references targeting teacher of a particular faith. The photograph of the teacher was used without permission. The school's official image and name was also misused in violation of the norms. The tone and content of the post reflects a revengeful, vulgar and rebellious attitude. The chats which have taken place on the basis of the said post are highly abusive in nature". The court observed that it was clear there was not just one meme or post but there are a series, hence the acts of petitioner's son cannot be said to be a stray incident.Instead, the court said, it showed a "pattern of behaviour".The court noted that the posts showed use of abusive language against the school and also an attitude of taking revenge from the school against some of its action. It further observed that names of certain girl students were also found in the chats and suggestion were given for maligning them. "From the material produced by respondent No.5, it cannot be said that acts of petitioner's son are that of a misguided child or a child who is not able to understand the seriousness of his mischievous acts. He, on the contrary, shows sufficient mental development enough to understand the gravity of his acts hence the apology tendered by him and the petitioner cannot come to his rescue. In any case the apologies which have been tendered are qualified in nature and not unequivocal. The action which has hence been taken by the school cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner looking to the gross indiscipline of petitioner's son," the court ruled. BackgroundThe court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the father of the boy studying in class 9. On February 2, the school called the father and informed him that his son had created a page on Instagram and was posting memes of teachers. The boy was also called to the director's office, where he admitted to this act and apologised. He was sent home with his father, with a letter containing a transfer certificate with bad character.On February 11, the father, via a call, was informed that his son would only be permitted to appear in the annual examination of Class 9 but would not be allowed to attend Class 10. The father submitted a representation to the principal of the school to reconsider the decision sympathetically; however, the school stood firm on its stand. The father again approached the school, but was refused, along with directions that his son would be allowed to sit in the examinations of class 9, but would be suspended till then. The father then approached the MP State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which constituted a team directing the school not to terminate the boy and to counsel him. The school however refused to allow the boy to join classes and to accept the boy's apology. FindingsThe court, relying on the case of Manisha Sharma v Karnataka State Commission (2023), reiterated that the State Commission was an advisory body and could suggest policy decisions with respect to a child's rights but was not empowered to adjudicate any lis between the parties. Thus, the court held that the State Commission only possessed the power to make recommendations and give suggestions, but lacked the authority to adjudicate matters between two contesting parties in adversarial proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the father that the school was bound to follow the order of the State Commission was rejected. "In the available facts of the case, the school has taken a conscious decision that it would not accept the order passed by the Commission. Reasons have been given in detail for not accepting the order. For the discussion as made hereinafter, it cannot be said that the said decision of school is unjustified in any manner", the court further noted. Additionally, the court rejected the contention that the school violated Section 24 of the Right to Education Act, noting that the boy was not involved in any criminal case for the Act to have been applicable. It was observed that the child was expelled as a result of a disciplinary action, and therefore, the action of the school was justified and within its rights. On the content the court noted:"A lady teacher has been shown as a Spiderwoman flying in the...

'Revengeful & Vulgar': MP High Court Upholds Expulsion Of School Student For Posting Derogatory, Abusive Content About Teacher Online

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags