The Supreme Court of India has intervened in a case involving a student from Indore who was rusticated by his school, permitting him to appear for the Class 10 board examinations. The bench reprimanded the school authorities for not taking adequate steps to reform the minor before resorting to rustication, emphasizing the importance of protecting a child’s right to education.
SC Order on Rusticated Student’s Right to Appear
The apex court noted that rustication — effectively suspension or expulsion from schooling — should not be used as a punitive measure that affects a child’s academic future without genuine attempts at rehabilitation. In its order, the court stated that denying the student the opportunity to appear for the board examinations would violate his fundamental right to education and hamper his future prospects. By allowing the student to sit for the Class 10 board exam, the court has underscored that disciplinary measures should not override a learner’s chance to complete recognised public examinations essential for further education.
Criticism of School Authorities
In its directive, the Supreme Court criticised the school for failing to follow rehabilitative procedures before rustication. Bench observations indicated that school authorities did not explore counselling, behavioural correction programmes or alternative disciplinary approaches, instead choosing removal of the student from the academic environment. The court stressed that educational institutions have a responsibility to foster behavioural improvements and ensure that disciplinary actions do not jeopardise a student’s academic progression.
Implications for Education Rights
This judgment reinforces the view that schools must balance disciplinary action with the fundamental rights of students. The order serves as a reminder that disciplinary policies must align with the constitutional guarantee of education, especially in cases involving minors. Students and parents across the country may view this ruling as a precedent affirming that disciplinary measures cannot unjustly impede board exam eligibility or deny access to mainstream academic evaluation. This verdict is expected to influence how schools handle serious behavioural issues without compromising students’ educational rights. For further developments on board exam eligibility and rights of students, official notices from the Ministry of Education or respective boards should be monitored.