Delhi HC to DPS, Dwarka: Using bouncers to block students' entry over fees is ‘mental harassment'
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta remarked, "This court is constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging "bouncers" to physically block the entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only a disregard for the dignity of a child but also a fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in society.
"
The court was hearing a petition filed by parents of students who had been expelled last month for non-payment of fees. It was informed that the school later withdrew its expulsion orders following a directive from a coordinate bench, reinstating the affected students.
The court emphasised that any form of public shaming or intimidation over financial issues, especially using force or coercive means, constitutes mental harassment and undermines a child's psychological well-being.
"The use of bouncers fosters a climate of fear, humiliation, and exclusion, which is incompatible with the ethos of education," the bench stated.
While noting that the school is entitled to charge reasonable for its operations—to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff, and provide a conducive learning environment—the court underlined that an educational institution cannot be equated with a commercial enterprise.
"The driving force of a school—especially one managed by a reputed society—must be public welfare, nation-building, and holistic child development, not profit maximisation.
The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise," the court observed.
As the school had reinstated the students, the court said the petition had become largely moot. However, it directed that any future action under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, must be preceded by proper notice and an opportunity for the affected students or their guardians to respond.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
3 New Judges Take Oath In Delhi High Court
New Delhi: Three new judges on Thursday took oath of office, taking the strength of the Delhi High Court to 43. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya administered oath of office to Justices Vinod Kumar, Shail Jain and Madhu Jain. The swearing-in ceremony was held in the high court premises. All the three judicial officers, who have been elevated to the high court, took oath in Hindi. With their swearing-in, the high court's strength has gone up to 43. The sanctioned strength of the high court is 60. The Centre had on July 22 notified the appointment of three judicial officers of the Delhi district judiciary as judges of the high court. The three officers, who joined the Delhi Judicial Service in 1992, were serving as principal district and sessions judges at various trial courts prior to their elevation -- Vinod Kumar was posted at Karkardooma court, Madhu Jain at Tis Hazari court and Shail Jain at Saket court. The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on July 1 had recommended the names of judicial officers Shail Jain and Madhu Jain as judges of the Delhi High Court. A day later, the collegium had also recommended judicial officer Kumar's name. On July 21, six other judges -- Justices V Kameswar Rao, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Vivek Chaudhary, Anil Kshetrapal, Arun Kumar Monga and Om Prakash Shukla -- had taken oath of office of the Delhi High Court.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Best way to create terror is to disrupt Parliament: Delhi HC on 2023 breach case
The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that disrupting the Parliament is the best way to create terror in India while hearing a bail petition filed by the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case. The next hearing will take place on October 8. (PIB file photo) A bench of justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur made the remarks after Manoranjan D's counsel submitted that their act of opening smoke canisters inside the Parliament while raising slogans did not amount to terrorist act since the smoke was not obnoxious and their intention was to only highlight unemployment and not create terror. However, the bench said, 'The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt the Parliament. You disrupted the Parliament.' Also Read: Delhi high court grants bail to Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat in 2023 Parliament breach case Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan, along with two other accused– Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde were accused of orchestrating a protest involving coloured smoke canisters on December 13, 2023. Sharma and Manoranjan had jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery, while Azad and Shinde protested outside. The four accused were immediately apprehended on December 13, 2023, while Kumawat and Jha surrendered before the police on December 14 and both were handed over to the special cell. The intrusion was planned to attract the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on issues such as inflation and poverty. It coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament and sparked questions about laxity in security. The police had charged the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The two had approached the high court against the trial court's order refusing to release them on bail. While Manoranjan had approached the court last year, Sagar approached the court on Thursday. Manoranjan in his plea had argued that the allegations against him were vague, no culpability could be attributed to him and Delhi Police wrongly invoked UAPA charges, since the offences under the same have not been made out in the present case. Sagar asserted that he was entitled to be released on bail on parity with the two co accused– Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were granted bail by the high court on July 2. The high court, while granting bail to Azad and Kumawat had deprecated their choice of place of protest, the bench had said that their protest was not a terrorist act. The court had said that their demonstrations were symbolic, in the nature of propagation of ideological messages and did not give a colour of substantial threat or terrorist intent. During the hearing on Thursday, the court also shot down the duo's contention of seeking bail on parity, noting that the two who were out on bail had protested outside the Parliament, while they were inside. 'You were inside the Parliament. There is no parity. You have to come on merits,' the bench said. The court, while asking Delhi police's lawyers– additional public prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri and advocate Divya Yadav to file their response in Sharma's bail plea, fixed October 8 as the next date of hearing.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court's three new judges take oath of office
Three new judges on Thursday took the oath of office, taking the strength of the Delhi High Court to 43. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya administered the oath of office to Justices Vinod Kumar, Shail Jain and Madhu Jain. The swearing-in ceremony was held in the High Court premises. All three judicial officers, who have been elevated to the High Court, took the oath in Hindi. With their swearing-in, the High Court's strength has gone up to 43. The sanctioned strength of the High Court is 60. The Centre had on July 22 notified the appointment of three judicial officers of the Delhi district judiciary as judges of the High Court. The three officers, who joined the Delhi Judicial Service in 1992, were serving as principal district and sessions judges at various trial courts prior to their elevation — Vinod Kumar was posted at Karkardooma court, Madhu Jain at Tis Hazari court and Shail Jain at Saket court. The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on July 1 had recommended the names of judicial officers Shail Jain and Madhu Jain as judges of the Delhi High Court. A day later, the collegium had also recommended judicial officer Kumar's name. On July 21, six other judges — Justices V. Kameswar Rao, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Vivek Chaudhary, Anil Kshetrapal, Arun Kumar Monga and Om Prakash Shukla — had taken the oath of office of the Delhi High Court.
