FAHEEMA SHIRIN.R.K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 3rd semester B.A student of Sree Narayanaguru College, Chelannur, Kozhikode, has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by her expulsion from the hostel. It is stated that she has been staying in hostel run by the college which is an aided college affiliated to University of Calicut. It is stated that the inmates of the hostel were not allowed to use their mobile phone from 10 p.m to 6 a.m within the hostel and that undergraduate students were not allowed to use laptop also in the hostel. While so from 24.06.2019 onwards the duration of the restriction in using the mobile phones was changed as 6 p.m to 10 p.m. The petitioner claims that though she, along with other inmates of the hostel, met the Deputy Warden - the 5th respondent, requested to convene a meeting of the inmates, explaining the inconveniences caused to them on account of the restrictions, the Deputy Warden or the matron did not respond. It is also stated that though a meeting was convened within a week thereafter, no discussion was made regarding the restriction of the electronic devices. It is stated that the 5th respondent sent a WhatsApp message informing that those who do not abide by the rules would have to vacate the hostel. The petitioner claims that she thereupon approached the Principal on 03.07.2019 and submitted Ext.P2 letter requesting to relax the restrictions. Thereupon, Ext.P3 letter was obtained from her in writing to the effect that she was not willing to abide by the new rule restricting usage of phone between 6 p.m to 10 p.m. Thereupon her parents were asked to meet the Principal on 05.07.2019; the 4th respondent informed them that the petitioner has to vacate the hostel as she refused to abide by the rules; Ext.P4 memo dated 05.07.2019 was issued to her directing her to vacate the hostel immediately; respondents 4 to 6 convened a meeting of the hostel inmates on 08.07.2019 when the students were informed about the action taken against the petitioner based on her request to relax the rules and that the inmates were asked to give in writing their willingness to abide by the restrictions when all the hostel inmates except the petitioner submitted such willingness; on 11.07.2019, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner directing her to vacate the hostel within 12 hours; on 15.07.2019, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 leave letter for the period from 12.7.2019 on 15.7.2019, as it was not possible for her to attend the classes since she had to travel nearly 150 km every day; when the petitioner reached the hostel on 15.7.2019 to vacate her room, it was seen locked and the hostel authorities did not allow her to take her belongings.

(2.) It is stated that the change in duration of the restriction for use of mobile phone was stated to be effected based on the request of some of the parents. According to the petitioner, she or her parents were never notified of any hostel meeting or PTA meeting before the implementation of the rules. It is also her case that such restrictions are imposed only in the girls hostel and therefore it amounts to discrimination based on gender, in violation of Clause 5 of Ext.P8 guidelines issued by UGC, which prohibits gender discrimination. It is also stated that the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 mandates the college authorities to take appropriate measures to safeguard the interests of the students without subjecting them to discrimination based on gender, caste, creed, religion, language etc. Therefore, according to her, the restrictions are arbitrary and it impairs the quality of education accessible to female students and it hampers their potential. It is also stated that such restrictions amount to violation of the principles embodied in the Conventions on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 ("CEDAW") and the Beijing Declaration along with Universal Declaration of Human Rights under which State parties are to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women. It is also her contention that such restrictions are imposed when the State Government is exploring the possibility of digital learning even from the school level, as evident from Ext.P10 Facebook post of the Minister for Education. It is stated that the Education Department has introduced QR Code in text books enabling the students to scan it and read the lessons and allied topics and watch the videos in their mobile smart phones or tablets. It is stated that on account of the expulsion, the study time of the petitioner is reduced compulsorily because of the time involved for travel. It is also her case that she is denied her right to acquire knowledge through internet and that by prohibiting the use of mobile phone, she is deprived of the access to the source of knowledge to her detriment which will affect the quality of her education. It is claimed that the right to access internet forms a part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the restrictions imposed do not come within reasonable restrictions covered by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The petitioner relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in Anuj Garj v. Hostel Association of India: (2008)3 SCC 1, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Anr.: (1995) 2 SCC 161, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India : (2015)5 SCC 1, N.D Jayal v. Union of India: (2004) 9 SCC 362, Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : (2017) 10 SCC 1, PUCL v. Union of India: (1997)1 SCC 301, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India : (2014) 5 SCC 438, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M and Ors. : (2018)16 SCC 368: 2018 (2) KHC 890 and the judgment of this Court in Anjitha K.Jose and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors: 2019(2) KHC 220, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the restrictions imposed as well as her expulsion consequent to it are illegal as it infringed her fundamental right to freedom and expression, right to privacy, right to education, etc.