- 11 October, 2025
Indore, October 11, 2025: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the expulsion of a Class 9 student from a reputed ICSE-affiliated school for creating and sharing derogatory, vulgar, and communal social media posts about his teachers. The Indore Bench, led by Justice Pranay Verma, dismissed a writ petition filed by the student’s father — a journalist — who had challenged the school’s decision to terminate his son’s enrolment.
In its ruling, the Court observed that the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Protection of Child Rights had no authority to order the student’s reinstatement, noting that its directives were merely recommendatory and not legally binding. Citing precedents from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, Justice Verma held, “The Commission has no power to adjudicate any lis between two parties.”
Derogatory Posts and Apology
According to court records, the student, along with two classmates, created an Instagram page using the school’s name and posted memes and captions mocking several teachers. Some posts reportedly contained abusive language, caricatures of teachers, and even communal undertones. When confronted, the students admitted to their actions and issued written apologies.
Despite the apology, the school decided to suspend the student for the remainder of the academic year, allowing him only to appear for the final examinations. Later, the school informed his father that his son would not be readmitted to Class 10.
Commission’s Order and Legal Challenge
The father approached the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which on 3 April 2025 directed the school to revoke the termination and offer counselling to the student. However, the school refused to comply, asserting that the Commission’s order held no binding legal effect and that it retained autonomy in disciplinary matters as a private unaided institution.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the expulsion violated the boy’s right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Right to Education Act (2009) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (2015). The school, in turn, defended its actions as necessary to uphold discipline, moral standards, and the institution’s reputation.
Court’s Findings
The Court reviewed material produced by the school in a sealed cover, including screenshots of the Instagram posts and chat logs. It found the content to be “highly abusive, vulgar, and communal in tone,” reflecting a “revengeful and rebellious attitude.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that the student was too young to understand the consequences of his actions, Justice Verma noted that the boy’s conduct showed “sufficient mental development to grasp the gravity of his acts.” The judge further observed that school principals serve as guardians of institutional discipline and morality, and that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with internal disciplinary decisions.
“The power of judicial review in such cases is very limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the school’s disciplinary decision,” Justice Verma stated in his order.
While upholding the expulsion, the Court noted that the student’s Transfer Certificate described him as having a “good character,” ensuring no barrier to his admission in another school. Finding no illegality or arbitrariness, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Source: Law Beat
Download Catholic Connect App for Daily News Updates:
Android: Click here to download
© 2025 CATHOLIC CONNECT POWERED BY ATCONLINE LLP
