The Patna High Court has held that a writ petition can be maintained against a private unaided school in matters concerning expulsion of a student, since an educational institution performs a public function while imparting education.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar said that although discipline in educational institutions is essential, schools must also remember that minor students are in the formative stage of their lives. Where misconduct is capable of correction, a reformative and corrective approach should ordinarily be preferred over expulsion.

The Court made the observations while setting aside the expulsion of a Class IX student of Don Bosco Academy, Patna, and directing the school to allow him to resume classes and participate in academic activities. The student had initially been placed under suspension and prevented from attending classes. His father approached the High Court ahead of the final term examinations for the 2025-26 academic session, contending that the student could lose an entire academic session if he was not allowed to appear. It was also submitted that the student had been informed about his expulsion, though no formal order or reasons had initially been communicated.

In February, the High Court passed an interim order permitting the student to take the final term examination, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.

The school raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. It argued that it was a private unaided institution and that the action challenged did not involve any public element or public duty.

Rejecting the objection, the High Court noted that the issue of maintainability of writ petitions against CBSE/ICSE-affiliated schools had been considered in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court held that even an unaided minority school discharges a public function while imparting education to children. Consequently, decisions relating to admission, fees and, in appropriate cases, expulsion may be subjected to judicial review where the institution has failed to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. It observed:

“…Even an unaided minority school, while imparting education to children, discharges a public function involving an element of public law. Consequently, actions of such an institution relating to admission of students, fixation of fees and, in an appropriate case, expulsion of students, may be subjected to judicial review where the authority has failed to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law…”

The Court added that such action “must necessarily withstand the scrutiny of the principles of fairness and reasonableness embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.” On merits, the school alleged that the student had repeatedly bunked classes and failed to comply with warnings and guidance issued by teachers. It also alleged that despite assurances from his father, the student subsequently got into a fight with another student and became increasingly aggressive, ultimately leaving the school with no option but to expel him.

The High Court noted that while the school's rules specified various acts of misconduct which could attract expulsion, mere bunking of classes was not specifically mentioned as an offence warranting such an extreme consequence. As regards fights between students, the Court said that such incidents may sometimes result from “momentary anger, immaturity or trivial disputes amongst children”. Every such incident could not automatically justify expulsion without considering its nature, gravity and surrounding circumstances. The disciplinary response, it said, must remain proportionate to the misconduct.

The Court stressed that students are “valuable human resources of the nation” and that disciplinary decisions must account for their age, maturity and circumstances. Where the misconduct can be corrected through counselling, warning, supervision or lesser disciplinary measures, schools should ordinarily adopt a reformative rather than punitive approach.

On the role of educational institutions in dealing with minors, the Court observed:

“The authorities of an educational institution must not lose sight of the fact that they are dealing with minor students who are still in the formative stage of their lives. An educational institution owes a corresponding duty not merely to impart academic education but also to facilitate the development of the personality, character and conduct of its students so that they may grow into responsible and good citizens.”

The Court also found that the school had failed to adhere to principles of natural justice and fair play before taking the drastic step. The student had not been given an adequate opportunity to explain the allegations against him, and the expulsion order did not disclose consideration of his explanation or the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents.

Holding that the student deserved an opportunity to improve his conduct and respond positively to the school's guidance and discipline, the Court quashed the expulsion order and directed the school to permit him to resume classes and participate in academic activities, including examinations for which he was otherwise eligible.

Case Title: Satyam v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2449 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh and Ms. Bulbul, Advocates

For the State: Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, GA-8; Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to GA-8

For the School: Mr. Kunal Tiwary and Ms. Mimansha Singh, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order