Delhi HC Restrains DPS Mathura Road from Excluding Class-VIII EWS Student Rusticated at Age 13
A thirteen-year-old EWS student rusticated after missing one exam was allowed back in Class-VIII; the court found the school's action illegal under Delhi's own school education rules.
The High Court of Delhi on 14 August 2026 directed Delhi Public School, Mathura Road to permit a thirteen-and-a-half-year-old girl studying in Class-VIII to resume classes immediately and continue until the next date of hearing. Justice Jasmeet Singh, sitting singly, found that the school had rusticated the student—an Economically Weaker Section admittee who has been enrolled since 2016—in plain violation of Rule 37(1)(b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which prohibits rustication of any child who has not yet turned fourteen. The Directorate of Education, appearing through counsel, did not contest the petitioner's reading of the rule.
The Dispute Before the Court
Akhta Khan, a Class-VIII student at DPS Mathura Road admitted under the EWS quota, did not attend school on 6 July 2026 and missed an internal examination scheduled that day. According to the petition, she stayed away after being persuaded by two older students from Class-XI of the same school.
The following day, on 7 July 2026, Akhta's mother Anjum Khan was summoned to the school and asked to collect her daughter's Transfer Certificate. When she repeatedly requested reconsideration, the school authorities told her orally that Akhta could not attend school for one month, after which her case would be reviewed.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivom Sethi, characterised the action as a de facto rustication and filed W.P.(C) 11741/2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a clutch of directions: reinstatement, a bar on giving effect to the Transfer Certificate, treatment of the forced absence as non-voluntary, and permission to sit for the missed examination.
The Statutory Bar on Rustication of Minors Under 14
The pivot of the petitioner's case was Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The rule sets out the disciplinary measures available to schools and divides them by age. Under Rule 37(1)(a), measures applicable to all students are limited to detention during breaks for neglect of class work, with an explicit prohibition on detention after school hours, and corporal punishment. Rule 37(1)(b) separately lists measures available only for “students who have attained the age of fourteen years” — and it is within that category alone that fine, expulsion, and rustication appear.
Akhta Khan was thirteen and a half at the time of the impugned action. The court read Rule 37(1)(b) to mean that rustication is simply unavailable as a disciplinary tool against a child who has not crossed the fourteen-year threshold. The school's action therefore fell outside the permissible range regardless of whatever conduct was alleged against the student.
Petitioner's counsel also pressed Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules alongside Rule 37, though the order's reasoning turned primarily on Rule 37(1)(b). The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was separately cited: as an EWS admittee, Akhta was entitled by statute to continue her elementary education in the school.
How the Bench Reasoned on Interim Relief
Justice Jasmeet Singh assessed the three classic elements for interim injunction. On prima facie case, the court found it clear: the action of DPS Mathura Road was, on the face of Rule 37(1)(b), contrary to the express prohibition in the DSER Rules. The counsel for the Directorate of Education, Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva, accepted this position, lending further support to the petitioner's reading.
On balance of convenience, the court reasoned that allowing the school's action to stand pending the full hearing would, in effect, validate what the court characterised as a prima facie unsubstantiated and illegal order — at the direct cost of a child's education. The convenience of the school in enforcing a disciplinary measure that the rules do not permit was given no countervailing weight.
On irreparable harm, Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if Akhta were kept out of school, she would suffer loss and injury that could not be compensated in monetary terms. Every day of missed schooling in Class-VIII, particularly for an EWS student with no alternative institutional support, causes harm that an eventual decree cannot undo.
The respondent No. 2, DPS Mathura Road, had been served through email but did not send anyone to represent it before the court. The interim order was therefore passed without the school placing any counter-narrative on record.
Directions Issued and Next Steps
The court directed that till the next date of hearing, Akhta Khan shall be permitted to continue her education in Class-VIII at DPS Mathura Road. The Directorate of Education was separately directed to ensure compliance with the order, with the court expressly invoking the best interest of the child as the governing consideration.
Notice was issued in the main writ petition. The Directorate of Education was given time to file a reply and obtain instructions. The matter has been listed for 14 October 2026.
Outcome
By order dated 14 August 2026, Justice Jasmeet Singh granted an interim direction in CM Appl. 54310/2026 requiring DPS Mathura Road to readmit Akhta Khan to Class-VIII forthwith and allow her to attend classes, examinations, and academic activities until the next hearing date. The Directorate of Education was directed to ensure compliance. The main writ petition, W.P.(C) 11741/2026, remains pending and is next listed on 14 October 2026.