A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that the matter goes beyond school discipline and directly concerns a minor’s academic future. The judges asked authorities to explore practical solutions that would allow the student to continue his education, including participation in board examinations, while the case is under consideration.
The case stems from the expulsion of a Class 9 student from Little Wonders Convent School in Indore. According to the school, the student, along with two friends, created a private Instagram account where allegedly objectionable memes involving teachers were posted. The school deemed the act gross indiscipline and expelled the student. After the Indore High Court declined relief, the family approached the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, the top court questioned whether the punishment imposed was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. It asked the state, the board, and the school to clarify their respective responsibilities in ensuring that the student’s schooling continues without interruption. The Bench also sought suggestions on whether the student could be permitted to appear for examinations through an alternative mechanism if necessary.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nipun Saxena argued that expulsion was a disproportionate response to the alleged act. He submitted that attributing criminal intent to a 13–14-year-old child was untenable and warned against granting schools unchecked authority over students’ private digital activity. He contended that such actions could infringe upon a child’s right to privacy and education.
The school and authorities have maintained that strict action was necessary to uphold discipline and deter similar behaviour. The Indore High Court had earlier agreed, observing that a firm message was required to prevent students from engaging in online misconduct targeting educators.
However, the Supreme Court signalled the need for balance between maintaining discipline and safeguarding a child’s right to education. The judges indicated that any corrective approach must be reformative rather than punitive, particularly when it risks derailing a minor’s academic year.
The next hearing on February 13 is expected to determine whether the student can continue at the same school or be allowed to sit for examinations through a special arrangement. The outcome could have wider implications for how schools address student conduct on social media while protecting educational rights.
