A.Madhivanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 23-06-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.6227 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009A.Madhivanan.. Petitioner.Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu,rep. By Secretary to Government,Higher Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The Principal Madras Christian College,Tambaram, Chennai-600 059.3.The Inspector of Police, D-6, Anna Square Police Station,Chennai-600 005.4. The Director,Directorate of Collegiate Education,Chennai... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords of the order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondentherein, dated 31.3.2009, issued against the petitioner and quash thesame and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner hereinto attend class, appear examination. For Petitioner : Mr.R.SagadevanFor Respondents : Mrs.Dhakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (R1 to R3 & R4) Mr.T.Madhusudhan Reddy (R2)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner has stated that he has been pursuing hisstudies in the third year Bachelor of Arts (Philosophy) in MadrasChristian College, Tambaram. While so, the Principal of the College,the second respondent herein had passed an order, dated 31.3.2009,suspending the petitioner from the college. 3. The petitioner has further stated that he is a member ofRSYF, which is an organisation formed to safe guard the rights ofthose who suffer social injustice, including casteism, and for theprotection of student rights and socio political rights. The saidorganisation had joined the agitation relating to the Srilankan Tamilissue by organising demonstrations, processions, meetings etc. On3.3.2009, the petitioner had participated in a demonstration, held infront of the entrance of Presidency College, Chennai. During the saiddemonstration, some police personnel, including the third respondent,had arrived at the spot in a police patrol vehicle and they startedabusing the petitioner and others, by using filthy language. They hadalso assaulted the petitioner and the other members of theorganisation. Thereafter, a first information report had been lodgedand a criminal case had been registered in Crime No.37 of 2009,against the petitioner and others, under Sections 147, 353, 294(b),read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of theTamil Nadu Public Properties Destruction Act. The petitioner wasproduced before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,for being remanded to custody. The petitioner had filed a petition,under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The injuriessuffered by the petitioner had been recorded and he was referred tothe Government Hospital for treatment. After the petitioner had beentreated he was sent to judicial custody, till 17.3.2009. Thepetitioner and the others had been granted bail, on 9.3.2009. On16.3.2009, the petitioner had received a letter from the secondrespondent college directing him to appear for an enquiry to beconducted by the College Discipline Committee, on 20.3.2009. Pursuantto the letter of the second respondent, the petitioner had attendedthe enquiry conducted by the College Discipline Committee, on20.3.2009, wherein he had explained the facts and circumstancesleading to the incident that had occurred, on 3.3.2009. On 31.3.2009,the petitioner had received an intimation from the second respondentcollege that he had been suspended from the college from 31.3.2009,until a clearance from the Police Department, D-6 Anna Square PoliceStation, was obtained. In such circumstances, the petitioner haspreferred the present writ petition before this Court, challengingthe said communication from the second respondent college, dated31.3.2009, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that thepetitioner is a law abiding student. However, under certaincompelling circumstances, the petitioner had participated in ademonstration near Presidency College, Chennai, in support of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Srilankan Tamil issue. During the said demonstration the petitionerwas abused by the police personnel, who had come to the place, wherethe demonstration was being held. Though the petitioner and theothers present at the site had been demonstrating peacefully, acriminal case had been registered against them, without sufficientcause or reason.5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that action had been taken against thepetitioner and the others, who were agitating near Presidency Collegein support of the Srilankan Tamil issue, since they became violentand were causing nuisance in a public place. It has been furtherstated that a criminal case had been registered against thepetitioner in Crime No.37 of 2009, and it is pending on the file ofthe XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the secondrespondent had stated that the petitioner had indulged in sloganshouting, on 3.3.2009, near Presidency College, Chennai, in supportof the Srilankan Tamil issue. Based on the first information reportlodged against the petitioner before the third respondent policestation, a criminal case has been registered against the petitionerin Crime No.37 of 2009. Since the action of the petitioner amountedto indiscipline, an enquiry had been held by the College DisciplineCommittee, on 20.3.2009. The petitioner had submitted a writtenexplanation admitting that he had participated in a demonstrationbefore Presidency College, in support of the Srilankan Tamil cause.The College Discipline Committee, after taking into consideration thesafety and the discipline of the college and the larger interests ofthe other students, had suspended the petitioner, temporarily, afterproviding him a due opportunity to explain his case. In suchcircumstances, the order passed by the second respondent, on31.3.2009, is in accordance with law and the principles of naturaljustice. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits.7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, thelearned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitionerwould file an affidavit undertaking that he would not indulge in suchactivities in future and that he would not act in any manner thatcould be termed as indisciplined behaviour. Since the academic careerof the petitioner would be seriously affected this Court may bepleased to direct the second respondent to revoke the suspensionorder, dated 31.3.2009, forthwith, and further, direct theauthorities concerned to permit the petitioner to write theexaminations, which he could not write due to the disciplinaryproceedings initiated against him, and to publish the resultsthereafter, subject to the rules and regulations applicable to thecase. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had filed anaffidavit of undertaking signed by the petitioner before this Court.It is as follows:"1.I submit that I am the petitioner herein as such Iam well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of thecase.2. I submit that I am filing this undertaking as perthe orders of the Honourable High Court of Judicature atMadras in W.P.No.6227 of 2009.3. I hereby render my unconditional apology to the 2ndrespondent college. I further submit that I will regularlyattend the class and maintain discipline in the collegecampus and I will strictly follow the rules and regulationsof the college.4. I submit that taking into consideration the factthat the 2nd respondent college is willing to permit me toattend the college, I hereby undertake the following:(A) I shall not indulge in acts of violence within thecollege campus, or outside the campus, either by myself orin the company of other students, or others;(B) I shall not participate in any politicalagitations, if any, and concentrate only on my studies; and(C) In addition to my studies, I also undertake to doany work assigned to me, without prejudice to my dignity,by the second respondent college.5. I submit that this undertaking is without prejudiceto the prosecution initiated against me in Crime No.37 of2009 registered by the third respondent, in which I am anaccused.6. I submit that in default of my undertaking, I shallsubmit myself to contempt of Court, or any action taken bythe second respondent college." 9. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent hadsubmitted that the impugned order of suspension, dated 31.3.2009,would be revoked on condition that the petitioner files a similarundertaking before the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. At this juncture, it is pointed out that freedom of speechand expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution ofIndia, being a fundamental right, it should be preserved and giveneffect to with all the sanctity it deserves. However, it also casts aduty on the person who exercises such a right. However, it is clearthat the said right could be curtailed and regulated to the extentpermitted, under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. There isno doubt that it is equally important for the management of thesecond respondent college to maintain discipline amongst itsstudents, in order to maintain the high standards expected of sucheducational institutions. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents,the respondents 1, 2 and 4 are directed to permit the petitioner towrite the examinations, which he could not write due to thedisciplinary proceedings initiated against him, and to publish theresults thereafter, subject to the rules and regulations applicableto the case. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe second respondent that the impugned order, dated 31.3.2009, wouldbe withdrawn on the petitioner submitting an undertaking, similar tothe affidavit of undertaking, dated 22.6.2009, filed before thisCourt, this Court is of the view that no further orders are requiredto be passed in the present writ petition, quashing the impugnedorder of the second respondent, dated 31.3.2009. This order is passedwithout prejudice to the criminal proceedings pending against thepetitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar cshTo1. The Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu,Higher Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai.2.The Principal Madras Christian College,Tambaram, Chennai-600 059. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Inspector of Police, D-6, Anna Square Police Station,Chennai-600 005.4. The Director,Directorate of Collegiate Education,Chennai.Writ Petition No.6227 of 2009NM(CO)EM/25.6.09