Patna HC Quashes Class IX Student's Expulsion from Don Bosco Academy, Cites Cryptic Order and Breach of Natural Justice

Justice Harish Kumar held Don Bosco Academy's expulsion of a minor student was cryptic, non-speaking and violated natural justice, ordering his reinstatement and a reformative approach to school discipline.

The High Court of Judicature at Patna has quashed the expulsion of a Class IX student from Don Bosco Academy, Patna, finding that the order dated 17 October 2025 was cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the student or his father. Justice Harish Kumar, sitting singly, directed the school to permit the student, Satyam, son of Sheo Kumar Shrivastava of New Jakkanpur, Patna, to resume classes immediately and to appear in all examinations for which he is otherwise eligible. The judgment also overruled the school's preliminary challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition, holding that a private unaided school discharges a public function in imparting education and that its action in expelling a student carries a public law element amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Dispute Before the Court

Satyam was enrolled in Class IX, Section I at Don Bosco Academy, Digha Ghat, Patna, and was registered with the ICSE Board under Roll No. 200367. The school placed him under suspension and, informally, communicated that he had been expelled — though no formal expulsion order was issued at that stage, and no reasons were disclosed.

His father filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2449 of 2026 before the Patna High Court. The immediate urgency was that the Final Term Examination for the academic session 2025–2026 was scheduled to commence from 16 February 2026. Without relief, the student faced the prospect of losing an entire academic year.

Justice Harish Kumar, by an interim order dated 12 February 2026, directed the school to permit Satyam to appear in the Final Term Examination, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. The school complied and thereafter filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It was through the counter-affidavit that the formal expulsion order dated 17 October 2025 — marked as Annexure R/8/I — was placed before the Court.

Senior Advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Singh led the case for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Ms. Bulbul and Mr. Shreyansh Harshit. The school was represented by Mr. Kunal Tiwary and Ms. Mimansha Singh. The State was represented by Mr. Neeraj Raj.

The School's Case: Contractual Relationship and Persistent Indiscipline

The school raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable. It contended that Don Bosco Academy is a private unaided institution, not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and that the action complained of had no nexus with any public duty. The relationship between the student and the school, it argued, was essentially contractual, governed by an agreement executed by the parents at the time of admission in 2021.

Clause 5 of that agreement authorised the Principal to require a student to leave the institution if, in the Principal's opinion, the student had failed to maintain discipline and his continued presence was detrimental to other students. Clause 66 of the school's class diary separately empowered the Principal or an authorised officer to impose punishment — including expulsion — commensurate with the nature of the offence. The school relied on St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors., [(2023) 4 SCC 498], for the proposition that even if an institution discharges a public duty, the action complained of must itself have a public law element before Article 226 jurisdiction can be invoked.

On the merits, the school alleged that Satyam had repeatedly bunked classes without permission, disobeyed teachers, engaged in a physical fight with another student during recess, and ultimately threatened that the school management would be responsible for any untoward incident. The school contended that, despite multiple warnings and the petitioner's own assurances, the student's behaviour did not improve and became increasingly aggressive, leaving it no choice but to expel him on 17 October 2025.

The Petitioner's Response: No Show-Cause Notice, No Hearing

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh submitted that the expulsion order was wholly arbitrary, illegal and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither a show-cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing had been given to either the student or his father before the order of 17 October 2025 was passed.

He further argued, drawing on Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405, that an authority must stand or fall on the reasons contained in its order and cannot supplement those reasons through a counter-affidavit filed in subsequent proceedings. The school's attempt to justify the expulsion through its counter-affidavit — by introducing materials and allegations not reflected in the expulsion order itself — was therefore impermissible.

On maintainability, senior counsel argued that the school's function of imparting education is constitutionally recognised under Article 21A, and that the expulsion of a minor student in an arbitrary manner — depriving him of access to education without any hearing — is amenable to judicial review under Article 226, regardless of whether the school falls within Article 12. Reliance was placed on Jayshree Vijay Mundaware v. Principal/Head Mistress of Ashoka Universal School, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3929, and Apoorva YK v. South Asian University, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 335.

The Court's Reasoning on Maintainability

Justice Harish Kumar overruled the preliminary objection. He traced the constitutional position through a line of Supreme Court decisions: Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Others, [(1979) 3 SCC 489], which postulated the five-point test for determining whether a body is an instrumentality of the State; Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others, [(1981) 1 SCC 722]; the seven-judge bench decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., [(2002) 5 SCC 111]; and, most recently, St. Mary's Education Society (supra).

The Court accepted that Article 226 jurisdiction is not determined merely by the identity or status of the entity against whom the writ is sought. What is of paramount consideration is the nature of the function performed and whether the impugned action involves a public law element. Individual wrongs arising purely out of contractual relationships, with no public element, cannot ordinarily be redressed under Article 226.

However, the Court found that the expulsion of a student by a school is not a purely private or contractual act. Imparting education has a public character. Actions of an educational institution relating to admission, fees and — in an appropriate case — expulsion of students may be subjected to judicial review where the authority has failed to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. The Court also noted the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine ALL 3935, which held that private institutions imparting education discharge a public duty and are amenable to judicial review under Article 226.

The Jayshree Vijay Mundaware decision was found directly on point: the Bombay High Court had held that expelling students without issuing a show-cause notice is impermissible and that, once an institution admits children, it undertakes the responsibility of imparting education and thereby discharges a public function involving a legal and statutory obligation.

Proportionality, the Expulsion Rules, and Non-Application of Mind

Moving to the merits, Justice Harish Kumar examined Clause 66 of the school's rules, which lists offences that may attract punishment up to expulsion — including use of violence, bullying, insubordination and other specified acts. He found that mere bunking of classes does not find specific mention in that clause as an offence warranting expulsion.

On the allegation of fighting, the Court observed that altercations between students may arise out of momentary anger, immaturity or trivial disputes. Every such incident cannot, without examining its nature, gravity and surrounding circumstances, be treated as warranting the extreme penalty of expulsion. The disciplinary response must be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the misconduct.

The Court set out a broader framework: the object of education is not confined to academic instruction. A school is expected to facilitate intellectual, social, moral and overall development of its students and to foster character and responsible citizenship. Where misconduct is capable of correction through counselling, warning, supervision or lesser disciplinary measures, the institution ought ordinarily to adopt a reformative and corrective approach rather than resort immediately to expulsion.

Turning to the expulsion order itself, the Court found it cryptic and non-speaking. It did not reflect any application of mind to the materials relied upon by the school, beyond general allegations of indiscipline and fighting. No adequate opportunity had been given to the student to explain the allegations, and the order disclosed no consideration of his explanation or the circumstances of the alleged incidents.

The Court further held that the school could not, through its counter-affidavit, introduce or rely upon materials that neither formed part of nor were considered in the decision-making process culminating in the expulsion order. The impugned order therefore suffered from non-application of mind, absence of adequate reasons, breach of natural justice and lack of proportionality — rendering it unsustainable under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Order

Justice Harish Kumar allowed the writ petition and passed the following directions:

The expulsion order dated 17 October 2025 (Annexure R/8/I to the counter-affidavit) is quashed and set aside.

Don Bosco Academy is directed to permit Satyam to resume classes and participate in all academic activities of the institution, including examinations for which he is otherwise eligible.

If, solely on account of the impugned expulsion, Satyam was prevented from appearing in any term examination that is mandatorily required to be cleared for appearing in the secondary examination, the school shall permit him to appear in an appropriate supplementary or special examination, conducted along with or immediately preceding the next term examination, so that he suffers no academic prejudice.

It is made clear that Satyam shall abide by the rules and regulations of the school and shall maintain proper discipline and decorum within the institution.

All pending applications in the matter stand disposed of.