Memorial For Respondent

TC- P
Before
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF
JEEVASTHAN
In the Matter of
WRIT PETITION (________/ 2015)
SUNITHA AND AJITH
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENT
V.
ST. MARTIN COLLEGE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Table of Contents
Respondent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
II
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
XI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
XII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
XIII
PLEADINGS
I.
THE GOVERNING BODY HAS THE POWER TO FORMULATE THE CODE OF CONDUCT
OF THE STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE
A. The power is under the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 30(1) 1
B. The scope of power of Governing Body is wide enough to formulate
Code of conduct
II.
C. The Doctrine of ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur is having its applicability
THE PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL OF THE STUDENTS IS VALID
10
A. The finding of Enquiry Commission is legal and valid as it followed the

basic principles of Natural Justice
B. Action of Principal is constitutional and valid in the eyes of law
III. RULE 10 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

A. Objective of Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct
B. Rule 10 upholds Article 14 of the Constitution of India
12
12
16
(i).The classification has reasonable objective and is based on

intelligible differentia
16
(ii).No discrimination by such rule -
17
18
19
19
21
D. The Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct is in consonance with Article 21
22
E. The Doctrine of ut res magis valeat quam pereat will be applicable
25
XIV
(iii). The rule is not anti-thesis to arbitrariness
C. Rule 10 does not violates Article 19 of the Constitution

(i). Rule 10 upholds Article 19(1) (a)
(ii). Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct upholds Article 19(1) (b)
PRAYER
I
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Index of Authorities
Respondent
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
NATIONAL CASES CITED
S. NO.
1.
CASE NAME
A M Patroni v. E C Kesavan AIR 1965 Ker 75
PAGE NO.
2
2.
A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corpn., (1984) 3 SCC 316
18
3.
Abhinav Yashwant Deshpande v. Gujarat University, 2014 SCC OnLine

Guj 8314
Ahemdabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Guajrat, AIR 1974 SC 1389
18
All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1980 (2)
SCC 478
Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 2 SCC 175
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
17,23
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, (1974) 2 SCC

348
Anjuman Ahle Hadees, Darbhanga and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
AIR 1985 Pat 315
Arya Samaj Shillong v. State of Meghalaya, AIR 2001 Gua. 47
17
Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court, 1974 3 SCC
103
Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 5 SCC 1
10
Berhampur Diocesan Catholic School Managing Committee v. State of

Orissa, AIR 1993 Ori 93
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, AIR 2002 SC 1432
3
3
19
25
Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Ghanshyam Das

Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110
Bool Chand v. Chancellor, Kurushetra University, AIR 1968 SC 292
18
17.
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika v. Secretary, Bar Council of

Maharashtra and Goa, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1567
C.D. Sekkilar v. R. Krishnamoorthy, AIR 1952 Mad 151
18.
Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja, (2003) 8 SCC 567
18
15.
16.
II
11
19.
Respondent
16
22.
Chayan Kr. Roy v. Chairman/Chairperson, Central Selection Committee

(M), 2005 (2) CHN 165
Commissioner of Police v. Sayed Hussain, (2006) 3 SCC 173: AIR
2006 SC 1246
D.C.M. Ltd. v. Assistant Engineer (HMT Sub-Division), Rajasthan State
Electricity Board, Kota, AIR 1988 Raj 64
Dainik Sambad v. State of Tripura, 1987 SCC OnLine Gau 19
23.
Deep Chand v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 648
24.
Dejo Kappen v. State of Kerala, 2012(2)KLJ421
21
25.
District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. AIR 2001 SC 3134
25
26.
Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, (2006) 8 SCC 433
19
27.
DTC v. DTC Mazdoor, AIR 1991 SC 101: (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600
25
28.
Elel Hotels Investments Ltd. v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 698
29.
Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) SC 333
30.
Express Hotels (P) Ltd v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 3 SCC 677
31.
Francis v. Union Territory, AIR 1981 SC 746
23
32.
Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638
25
33.
34.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr., (2003) 4
SCC 239
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commr. of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227
20
35.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45
36.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
19
37.
Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan, 1996 (2) SSC 145
38.
Joginder Singh v. State, AIR 1968 Raj 63
10
20.
21.
III
11
17
19
Respondent
39.
Jugrraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1971 SC 761
40.
K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1985 SC 660
41.
Kamra v. NIA, (1992) 2 SCC 36,
25
42.
Kanaiyalal v. Indumali, AIR 1958 SC 444
25
43.
Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955(469)
25
44.
Kokila Devi v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2015(1)AJR248
18
45.
Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina&Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 124 : AIR 1979 SC 52
46.
M/s. Nestle India Ltd. v. The Food Safety and Standards Authority
of India & Ors., 2015 (6) ABR 74
Maharashtra State Mining Corporation v. Sunil, AIR 2006 SC 1923
18
Managing Bd. Of the Milli Talimi Mission v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984
SC 1757
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
47.
48.
49.
50.
3,11
23,24
21
52.
Mechineni Kishan Rao v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, AIR

2002 AP 457
Modi Nathubhai Motilal & Ors. v. Chotubhai Manubhai Desai, AIR
1962 Guj 68
Nanda Ghosh v. Guru Nanak Education Trust, AIR 1984 CAL 40
53.
National Engg. Industries v. Kishan Bhageria 1988 Supp SCC 82
54.
7
21
56.
National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr.,

AIR 2015 SC 2846
NPS Employees Reformation Association v. The General Manager,
2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1539
P. Bakkiammal & Ors. v. R. Rama Lakshmi & Ors., (2007) 2 MLJ 778
57.
P.V. Mani v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Ker 86
58.
Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. U.O.I, (1973) 2 SCC 543
51.
55.
IV
9
3
Respondent
59.
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476
19
60.
65.
Pradeep Kumar Biswa v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and

Others, (2002) 5 SCC 111
Principal, Shri Narayana College v. Vice-Chancellor, University of
Kerala and Anr., AIR 1996 Ker 369
Publisher, Sportstar Magazine, Chennai v. Girish Sharma, 2000 SCC
OnLine Mad 896
Pupul v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, 2012 SCC
OnLine Bom 1873
Puthota Chinnamma v. The Regional Deputy Director of Public
Instruction, Guntur and Anr., AIR 1964 AP 227
Ram Deo Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1988 CriLJ 1431
66.
Ramanuj Pandey v. State of M.P. &Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 248
11
67.
Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, 1969 SCR (2) 73
68.
69.
Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and Ors. v. State of Bombay and Anr., AIR 1963
SC 540
Rly. Board v. Niranjan Singh, (1969) 1 SCC 502
20
70.
S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662
71.
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1
72.
73.
Samarth Shiksha Samiti v. Directorate of Education and Anr., 2012 IAD

(Delhi) 434
Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157
18
74.
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188
18
75.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
20
76.
Sidhajbai v. State of Gujarat, 1963 SCR (3) 837
77.
Sindhi Education Society and Anr. v. The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT
Delhi and Ors., 2010 (6) SCALE 578
Sojan Francis v. M.G. University, AIR 2003 Ker 290
61.
62.
63.
64.
78.
V
12
19
18
4
9
4,21,22
Respondent
79.
Srm University v. The Secretary, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3478
18
80.
17
81.
State of Bihar v. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Assns., (2008) 7 SCC

231
State of Bombay v. F N Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318
82.
State of Kerala etc. v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, AIR 1970 SC 2079
83.
State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205
84.
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284
85.
Sudheer v. Headmistress, H.S., Panoor, 1975 Ker LT 834
12
86.
Swati VasantPatil&Anr. v. Kandivli Education Society, 2002 (3)

BomCR 51
T.K.V.T.S.S. Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2002 Madras 42
T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, (2002) 8 SCC 481
11
The Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Ors.,

AIR 2007 SC 570
Tika Ramji v. State of UP, AIR 1956 SC 676
15,23
92.
U.S. Verma, Principal, D.P.S., Faridabad v. National Commission For

Women & Ors., AIR 2001 DHC 1730
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510
93.
Venkataswami Naidu v. NarasiamNaraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361
25
94.
Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
16,17
4
10
19
FOREIGN CASES CITED

S. NO.
CASES CITED
PAGE NO.
1.
Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway Co., (1880) 5 AC 473
2.
Cooper v. Wandsworth Boards of Works, (1861) 8 LT 278
3.
Hartman v. Hornsby, 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244
VI
4.
Respondent
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
STATUTES AND RULES CITED

S. No.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1.
The Constitution of India, 1950
2.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3.
National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2005
REPORTS REFERRED
S. No.
1.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTIONS, Guidelines for
determination of Minority Status, Recognition,
Affiliation and related matters in respect of Minority Educational Institutions under
the
Constitution
of
India.
Available
at:
http://ncmei.gov.in/writereaddata/filelinks/c296efcb_Guidelines.pdf.
2.
Dina Craissati & Albert Motivans, Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children,

UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015)
3.
Fiona Leach & Shashikala Sitaram, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Adolescent
schoolgirls in South India, Education Citizenship and Social Justice (2007)
4.
Kim Mearman, Single-Sex Education: The Connecticut Context Technical Report,

State Education Resource Center, 12 (2013)
5.
ROBERTA M. HALL & BERNICE R. SANDLER, Association Of Am. Colleges, The Class
Room Climate: A Chilly One For Women? (1982). The report was part of the
Association of American Colleges Project on the Status and Education of Women
ARTICLES REFERRED
S. No.
1.
Abigail Norfleet James & Herbert Richards, Escaping Stereotypes: Educational
Attitudes of Male Alumni of Single-Sex and Coed Colleges, 4 Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 136148 (2003)
VII
2.
Respondent
American ass'n univ. women educ. found., hostile hallways: the AAUW survey on
sexual harassment in america's colleges 5, 7 (1993)
3.
Amy Novotney, Coed verus single-sex ed, 42 American Psychological Association, 58

(2011)
4.
Ann M. Gallagher & James C. Kaufman, Gender Differences in Mathematics: An

Integrative Psychological Approach, Cambridge University Press, 1-16 (2005)
5.
Carol E. Thom, A Comparison of the Effect of Single-Sex Versus Mixed-Sex Classes

on Middle School Student Achievement, Marshall Digital Scholar, Marshall University,
37 (2006)
6.
Cornelius Riordan, The Future of Single-Sex Colleges, in american ass'n univ. women
educ. found., separated by sex: a critical look at single-sex education for girls 53, 54
(1998)
7.
Edison Trickett & Penelope Trickett, The independent school experience: aspects of
the normative environment of single-sex and coed secondary schools, 3 Journal of
Educational Psychology, 374-381, (1982)
8.
James A. Borland, "Women in the Life and Teachings of Jesus," in Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood, 115 (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Crossway (1991)
9.
Spielhofer, T, O'Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S. and Schagen, I., The impact of
college size and single-sex education on performance. Local Government Association,
48 (2002)
BOOKS REFERRED
1 H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Universal Law Publishing Co., Fourth

Edition.
1 Halsburys Law of India, Administrative Law, Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
1 M P Jain & S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, Lexis Nexis, Seventh Edition.
1 M.P. Jain, Treatise on Administrative Law, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.
10 Durga Das Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India 11,537 (Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 8th Edition.
VIII
Respondent
2 J.K. Verma, B.R. Ghaiyes, Law and Procedure of Departmental Enquiries, In Public
and Private Sectors, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.
2 Samaraditya Pal, Indias Constitution Origin and Evolution, LexisNexis.
34 Halsburys Laws of India, Constitutional Law-I, Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
C. K. Thakker, Administrative Law. Eastern Book Company, Second Edition.
Durga Das Basu, Comments on the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis, Eighth Edition.
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India, (Justice Sujata V. Manohar, Third Ed., Eastern
Book Company, Lucknow) (1982) 2010
DICTIONARIES REFERRED
Henry Campbell Black, Blacks Law Dictionary in Bryan A. Garner (Thomson West
2006), 8th Edition.
Justice C. K. Thakker, Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, Ashoka Law House.
P Ramnatha Aiyars, Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, Wadhwa.
DATABASES REFERRED
http://www.manupatra.com
http://www.heinonline.com
https://www.scconline.in/default.aspx
https://www.jstor.com
IX
Statement of Jurisdiction
Respondent
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsels on behalf of the Respondent have endorsed their pleadings in response to the
petition filed by the Petitioner under the aegis of Article 2261 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent will humbly contest the grounds that have been invoked under the aegis of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
INDIA CONST. Art. 226.

Power of High Court to issue certain writs(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders
or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or
any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.]
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner,
is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1) without(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order, and
(b) Giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
Makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application
to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose
of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which
the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day
of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application
is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or as the case may be, the expiry of the
next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.
X
Statement of Facts
Respondent
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Jeevasthan is a state in the Indian Union. The University of Jeevasthan established in 1952 has
45 Post Graduate Department of Studies and Research and 250 affiliated colleges. St. Martin
College is a catholic institution affiliated to the University. There are 1700 students in the
college, out of which 950 are girls.
B. According to Section 40 of Jeevasthan University Act, 1952 the guidelines for formation of a
governing body for management of every private college are being incorporated. Stating that
the Governing Body is for giving advice on all matters relating to the administration of the
college.
C. In 2013, St. Martin College got recognition as a minority educational institution under National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004.
D. The Governing Body of the college formulated and published a Code of Conduct for Students.
According to Paragraph 10 of the code, no male and female student shall sit on the same
bench.
E. Sunitha and Ajith are third year B.Com students of the college and on 06.08.2015 they were
suspended by the Principal stating that they had violated Paragraph 10 of the code.
F. This action caused a lot of protest from the large section of the society therefore, the Principal
on 18.08.2015 appointed a commission to inquire into the allegations against Sunitha and
Ajith. The single member who was appointed in this commission was Dr. Sreejith Raju, Head
of the Department of Political Science, of the same college.
G. Opportunity was given to them to adduce and rebut evidence, including right to cross
examination. In these proceedings the only eye witness was Sarmila Bai, a 75 year old sweeper
of the college. She deposed before the commission that on 04.08.2015, she saw both of them
sitting together on the same bench and Ajiths hand was on the shoulder of Sunitha. During
cross examination Ajith showed Sarmila Bai a 500 rupee note which she was not able to
identify correctly and recognized it as a 100 rupee note.
H. The commission submitted in report with a finding that they had violated the code which was
based on the oral evidence of Sarmila Bai. The principal dismissed them from the college.
I. Hence, aggrieved by this Ajith and Sunitha has filed a writ petition on the grounds that
governing body is not the correct authority to formulate the code of conduct and there is an
infringement of the fundamental rights with error of law being apparent on the face of record.
XI
Questions Presented
Respondent
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The following issues are presented before the Honble High Court of Jeevasthan:I.
WHETHER GOVERNING BODY HAS POWER TO FORMULATE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE
STUDENTS?
II.
WHETHER PUNISHMENT IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE GRAVITY OF THE ALLEGED

MISCONDUCT?
III. WHETHER RULE 10 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA?
XII
Summary of Pleadings
Respondent
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I.
The Respondent humbly submits before the Honble High Court that the Governing body
within its powers while formulating the Code of Conduct for students and no such exceeding
of power has been committed by it. The formulation of the Code of Conduct has been done
under the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 30 (1). Therefore, exercise of
such a constitutional right is well within the powers of the Governing body.
II.
The Respondent further humbly submits that the punishment of dismissal is justified as the
students violated the Rule 10 of Code of Conduct. The Enquiry Commission was headed by
the senior and reputed staff of the College and the commission gave adequate opportunity of
hearing and cross examination to both the students before coming up with its finding. The
punishment is disciplinary in nature and any education institution can take disciplinary action
in order to maintain discipline. A minority education institution derives its right to administer
from the Constitution which allows the minority education institution to take any measures
for maintaining discipline in the institution.
III. It is further submitted that the Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct is intra vires to the
Constitution and does not violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,
Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution. The said rule has reasonable objective to
provide safe and uninterrupted education environment to the female students and also to
uplift the educational standards and academic outcome of the College. The said Rule
nowhere violates any speech and expression and freedom of assembly and being an education
institution it can frame rules to maintain discipline and to provide uninterrupted education to
each and every student. The Law and the procedure followed by the college authorities was
reasonable, just and fair and therefore satisfies the test of Article 21.
XIII
Pleadings
Respondent
PLEADINGS
I.
THE GOVERNING BODY HAS THE POWER TO FORMULATE THE CODE OF CONDUCT OF THE
STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE.
1.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble High Court that the Governing body of the
St. Martin College has the power to formulate the code of conduct of the student. It is within
its authoritative powers while formulating the code of conduct.
A. The power is under the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 30(1).
2.
Under, the constitutional provision which states Rights of Minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions,2it is not permissible to infringe the constitutional
protection in exercise of State policy or by a subordinate legislation to frame such rules which
will impinge upon the character or in any way substantially dilute the right granted by the
Constitution.
3.
The respondent college has been recognized as a minority educational institution3 under the
National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 and hence a receiver
of special privileges which are given to such institutions.
4.
The whole object of conferring the right on the minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that
there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have
such special protection they will be denied equality.4
5.
Article 30(1) postulates that the religious community will have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice meaning thereby that where a religious
minority establishes an educational institution, it will have the right to administer that. The
article in our opinion clearly shows that the minority will have the right to administer
educational institutions of their choice provided they have established them, but not
otherwise.5
6.
It is well-settled that Article 30(1) cannot be read in a narrow and pedantic sense and being
a fundamental right, it should be given its widest amplitude. The width of Article 30(1)
2
3
4
5
INDIA CONST. Art. 30(1).

Moot Proposition 3.
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662.
1
Pleadings
Respondent
cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations which are destructive to the substance
of the right enshrined therein.6
7.
There should be no question to the power exercised by the Governing body of the
respondents as a university by means of affiliation cannot do indirectly what it cannot do
directly.7
In the case of The Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Ors.8 it was
8.
being held that all laws made by the state to regulate administration of educational
institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority institutions also. But if any such
regulations interferes with the overall administrative control by the management over the
staff, or abridges dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer
educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority
institutions.
9.
As, the respondent have been granted the status of minority in the year 2013 by the National
Commission of Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 it has fulfilled the guidelines to
obtain such a status. In the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India9 it was being established by
the Honble apex Court that in order to claim the benefit under Article 30(1) of the
constitution the community must show that : (i) It is religious/linguistic minority, (ii) The
institution was established by it. Without establishing these two conditions it cannot claim
the guaranteed rights to administer it.
10.
A community, whether religious linguistic, which is numerically less than 50 per cent of the
population of the state is entitled to the right guaranteed by the article providing for rights of
minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under the Constitution of India
for a minority, the appointment of the headmaster of an educational institution is part of the
right to administer such institution within the meaning the meaning of clause (1) of this
article.10
7
8
9
10
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, Guidelines for
determination of Minority Status, Recognition, Affiliation and related matters in respect of Minority Educational
Institutions
under
the
Constitution
of
India.
Available
at:
http://ncmei.gov.in/writereaddata/filelinks/c296efcb_Guidelines.pdf.
Managing Bd. Of the Milli Talimi Mission v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1757.
AIR 2007 SC 570.
AIR 1983 SC 1.
A M Patroni v. E C Kesavan AIR 1965 Ker 75.
2
Pleadings
11.
Respondent
The contention of the petitioner that the power to formulate such a conduct lies within the
scope of powers of the university or the Principal because if the act is done by the university
it is an interference from outside thus,
"If every regulatory order which while maintaining the formal character of
a minority institution destroys the power of administration is held justifiable
because it is in national or public interest, though not in its interest as an
educational institution the right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) will be but
a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality. Regulations must be towards
making it effective as an educational institution"11
12.
In the case of Nanda Ghosh v. Guru Nanak Education Trust12, the Calcutta High Court held
that the Education Board cannot interfere with the management of a minority institution by
super ceding its managing committee and appointing an administrator to take charge of the
school and administer it.
13.
Judiciary in plethora of cases has held that any invasion from outside regarding the
administration of a minority educational institution is a violation of Article 30(1).When
provision infringes guarantee in favor of minority institutions to manage their own affair,
then that provision must be struck down as being ultra vires.13
14.
In Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina14, a provision enabling an aggrieved member of the staff of a
college to make an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor against an order of suspension and other
penalties was held to be violative of Article 30 (1).
15.
In Arya Samaj Shillong v. State of Meghalaya15, the Gauhati High Court has held that the
Arya Samaj Hindi Kanya Vidyalaya School in Meghalaya is a minority institution and
therefore the State has not power to change the constitution of the Managing Committee of
the school. Arya Samaj in Meghalaya is both linguistic as well as religious minority. It has a
distinct entity. Hence, it was held that the notification directing the school to follow
instructions the change of the constitution of Managing Committee was unconstitutional and
invalid.
11
12
13
14
15
Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and Ors. v. State of Bombay and Anr., AIR 1963 SC 540.
AIR 1984 CAL 40.
Anjuman Ahle Hadees, Darbhanga and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1985 Pat 315.
(1979) 2 SC 124.
AIR 2001 Gua. 47.
3
Pleadings
16.
Respondent
Again in All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh16, a provision
contained in Andhra Pradesh Private Educational institution Control Act, 1995 requiring
prior approval of the competent authority of all orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in
rank passed against a teacher by management of the college was held to be inapplicable to a
minority institution.
17.
The term administer in Article 30(1) is wide enough to take in enforcement of discipline in
regard to dress and other matters by the educational institution.17 The authority through
which the institution is managed is usually called the Governing body18. Therefore, the
Linguistic minority has constitution and character of its own and a provision of law, which
would be enforced against the general class, may not be enforceable with the same rigors
against the minority institution.19
18.
In the case of T.K.V.T.S.S. Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil
Nadu20 it was being held that the provision of the Gujarat university which displaced the
management of the college and also usurps the choice of managing body if minority
educational institution is an infringement of Artcile 30(1). This provision was declared as
non-applicable due to such interference in the rights of the minorities.
19.
The Court in Sojan Francis v. M.G. University21, upholding Clause 9 relating to General
Discipline, this Court declared that the guideline banning political activities within the
college campus and forbidding the students from organizing or attending meetings other than
the official ones within the campus is not designed to prohibit any of the fundamental rights
of the students guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (a) or (c) of the Constitution of India. This Court
held that educational institution established either by minority or majority community have
got the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g), 29(1), (2) and 30 of Constitution
of India, as the case may be, and have the right to maintain discipline and orderly
administration.
16
17
18
19
20
21
1980 (2) SCC 478.

Puthota Chinnamma v. The Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Guntur and Anr., AIR 1964 AP 227.
Berhampur Diocesan Catholic School Managing Committee v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 Ori 93.
Sindhi Education Society and Anr. v. The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors., 2010 (6) SCALE 578.
AIR 2002 Madras 42.
2003 (2) KLT 582.
4
Pleadings
20.
Respondent
In the case of State of Kerala etc. v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial22 the apex Court held that
the provisions which interferes with the administration of the minority educational institution
should be declared null and void.
21.
In Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar23, the petitioner challenged the rule of
appointment, dismissal, removal, and termination of teacher on the recommendation of
Commission under their new Act. The Constitution Bench, speaking through Hidayatullah
C.J., held, that this provision is destructive of the right of the management. The institution
was held entitled to the protection of an exemption clause under which, in case of minority
institution only, 'approval' of the Commission and the university was required and not
'recommendation' of the Commission. In other words, recruitment was to be made by the
institution itself and not by the Commission for it.
22.
In Sidhajbai v. State of Gujarat24, a unanimous decisions of a six judge Constitution Bench.

Expressed the tentative view that under Article 26(a) every religious denomination had a
right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and in a
larger sense an educational institution may be regarded as charitable. The learned judges
added that it was not necessary to decide this question as Article 30(1) itself was squarely
attracted. There was hardly any need for hesitation in expressing this view in basing this
decision.
B. The scope of power of Governing Body is wide enough to formulate code of conduct.
23.
The power given to Governing body through Section 40 of Jeevasthan University Act, 195225
is very wide in its ambit and also includes formulation of a code of conduct. There, can be
no authority with the university or the principal to formulate such code relating to
administration of college.
24.
The meaning of a Governing body propounded is that it is an 'instrumentality' to mean "a

means or agency through which a function of another entity is accomplished, such as a
branch of a governing body." Agency is defined as "a fiduciary relationship created by
22
23
24
25
AIR 1970 SC 2079.

1969 SCR (2) 73.
1963 SCR (3) 837.
Supra note 2 at
5
Pleadings
Respondent
express or implied contract or by law in which one party (the agent) may act on behalf of
another party (the principal) and bind that other party by words or actions."26
25.
In the case of P.V. Mani v. Union of India27 it was held that:

The Court shall not assume that a subordinate legislative instrument is
invalid for absence of competence or bona fide or fairness or
reasonableness and cast the negative burden on the rule-making authority.
It should be just the other way, the person who challenges the vires of the
rule has to prove his challenge just as much as a person who challenges a
legislative enactment. If he fails in such attempt the challenge can only be
thrown out28.
26.
Powers need not always be conferred expressly by a statute. For instance power to appoint
includes the power to dismiss. Power to grant permission includes power to cancel the same
in certain circumstances.29
27.
The code of conduct formulated by the Governing body cannot be declared as an ultra vires
because this Doctrine ought to be reasonably, and not unreasonably understood and applied
and that whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon those things
which the legislature has authorized ought not to be held by judicial construction to be ultra
vires.30
28.
In the case of State of T.N. v. Hind Stone31 Section 15 of the mines and minerals
(development and regulation) act, 1957 and Rule 8-C framed by the state government totally
banned quarrying in black granite by private persons. Thus, by delegated legislation, private
enterprises were totally prohibited in quarrying black granite. It was contended that the rule
was ultra vires the parent act and therefore, bad. Negating the contention and interpreting the
connotation regulation in a wider sense the Supreme Court observed, We have no doubt
26
27
28
29
30
31
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, THOMSON WEST, 8TH Edition. See also Pradeep Kumar Biswa v. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology and Others (2002) 5 SCC 111.
AIR 1986 Ker 86.
Id.
Bool Chand v. Chancellor, Kurushetra University, AIR 1968 SC 292.
Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway Co., (1880) 5 AC 473. See also State of Bombay v. F N Balsara AIR
1951 SC 318; Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752; Tika Ramji v. State of UP AIR 1956 SC 676,
Deep Chand v. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 648; Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 45;
National Engg. Industries v. Kishan Bhageria 1988 Supp SCC 82; Express Hotels (P) Ltd v. State of Gujarat (1989)
3 SCC 677; Elel Hotels Investments Ltd. v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 698
(1981) 2 SCC 205, See also K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1985 SC 660.
6
Pleadings
Respondent
that the prohibiting of leases in certain cases is part of the regulation contemplated by Section
15 of the Act.
29.
In the case of Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan32 it was held that it is trite law
that even if the incompetent authority issues a charge-sheet yet would not vitiate the enquiry
after the punishment order is passed by the incompetent authority.
30.
Hence, in the present case also there can be no question regarding the incompetency of the
Governing body and formulating the code of conduct is within the scope of powers on it.
C. The Doctrine of ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur is having its applicability.
31.
The jurisprudential meaning of this Doctrine is that there is a ratification or approval

especially by a principal of an agents transaction.33 Ratification is the approval by act, word,
or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly
performed in the first instance.34 Therefore, even if the petitioners contention is that the
Governing body was not within its power while formulating the code of conduct, it will not
stand as the principle suspended the petitioners when the violation of the code of conduct
happened thus, ratifying the act of the Governing body which is formulating the code of
conduct.
32.
A subsequent ratification of act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act. It is a

maxim borrowed from the Roman law and now an element in the jurisprudence of every
civilized nation.35 The expression ratification means the making valid of an act already done.
This Principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur meaning
thereby a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such
act. It is for this reason; the ratification assumes an invalid act, which is retrospectively
validated.
33.
Ratification relates back to original act.36 Thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in
conformity with the procedure prescribed in rules.37 In the case of Maharashtra State Mining
Corporation v. Sunil38 it was held by the apex Court that an act by a legally incompetent
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1996 (2) SSC 145.

Supra note 25 at
Hartman v. Hornsby 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244.
P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexion, (J. Y V Chandrachud Ed., 3 rd Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur). 2007
Jugrraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1971 SC 761
National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr., AIR 2015 SC 2846.
AIR 2006 SC 1923.
7
Pleadings
Respondent
authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act cannot be
subsequently rectified by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition
means the making valid of an act already done. The Principle is derived from the Latin maxim
ratihabition mandato acquiparatur namely a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent
to a prior authority to perform such act. Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which
is retrospectively validated.
34.
In the case of Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. U.O.I39 it was being held that the board of
directors can ratify an act which was an unauthorized one on behalf of the company.
Similarly, in the case of Samarth Shiksha Samiti v. Directorate of Education and Anr.40 it
was held that the charge sheet issued by the manager of the school should not be put to
question as the ratification of the same has been done by the managing committee while it
requested the Directorate of Education to appoint nominees for the disciplinary committee
to conduct proceedings based on the charge sheet.
35.
Hence, the code of conduct formulated by the Governing body has been ratified by the
principal as the decision of the enquiry commission was upheld, consequent to which the
suspension was made according to the Code of Conduct.
II.
THE PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL OF THE STUDENTS IS VALID.
36.
The respondent humbly submits to the Honble High Court that the punishment awarded to
the students is perfectly valid in the eyes of the law as the College authorities i.e. Enquiry
Commission followed the principles of natural justice before submitting its finding. The
punishment is awarded as a matter of disciplinary action taken against the defaulters who
violated the code of conduct.
A. The finding of Enquiry Commission is legal and valid as it followed the basic
principles of Natural Justice.
37.
The respondent humbly submits before the Honble Court that the finding of the commission,
meaning to say that the students violated the Rule 10 of the code of conduct, is perfectly
legal and valid in the eyes of law. The commission followed the basic principle of natural
justice by giving them fair hearing as well as opportunity of cross examination before
39
40
(1973) 2 SCC 543, See also High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 239.
2012 IAD (Delhi) 434.
8
Pleadings
Respondent
concluding its finding. The finding was also based on relevant evidence put before it by the
eye witness, SarmilaBai.
38.
The Enquiry Commission, headed by the Mr. Sreejith Raju, Head of Department of Political
Science, followed the most basic principle of natural justice, i.e. audi alteram partem which
means both sides should be heard before a decision is arrived at. This principle is the more
far-reaching of the principles of natural justice, since it can embrace almost every question
of fair procedure, or due process, and its implication can be worked out in great detail.41
39.
In the present case before the Honble High Court, the enquiry commission, in order to
provide fair procedure and due process, it gave opportunity of hearing to both the students.
The object underlying giving hearing is to enable a person to deny or controvert the
allegations made, and to put forward his case in support of his defense. 42 Both the students
had the opportunity to establish their case and prove their innocence before the enquiry
commission. The enquiry commission also gave the opportunity of cross-examination to the
students, which is again the evidence of fair hearing given to the students. The legal position
is fairly well settled that fair hearing or opportunity of rebuttal does not necessary include
the right of crossexamination.43But even then the enquiry commission in bona fide and
under its good conscience gave the opportunity of cross examination to the students so as to
give them a fair hearing.
40.
The finding of the enquiry commission was based on the direct oral evidence44 of SarmilaBai,
who deposited before the commission that she personally saw Ajith and Sunitha sitting on a
same bench and Ajith was having his hand over the shoulders of Sunitha. By going through
the different judicial pronouncements we can infer that there is a huge reliance been placed
by the Courts on the direct oral evidence while adjudicating any case.45It is also not necessary
that the incident should be proved by more than one witness as no particular numbers of
witnesses are required for the proof of any fact.46 Even if the findings of the enquiry
41
42
43
44
45
46
WADE AND FORSYTH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 2009, Pg. 402. See also, Craig, Administrative Law, 2007, Pg. 407.
Cooper v. Wandsworth Boards of Works, (1861) 8 LT 278; See also, Board of High School and Intermediate
Education v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110; Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) SC 333.
C.K. THAKKER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, (Second Edition, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow (2012).
S. 60 of The Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872 available at:
http://ncw.nic.in/Acts/THEINDIANEVIDENCEACT1872.pdf.
Ram DeoYadav&Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1988 CriLJ 1431; See also: P. Bakkiammal & Ors. v. R. Rama Lakshmi
& Ors., (2007) 2 MLJ 778; Modi Nathubhai Motilal & Ors. v. Chotubhai Manubhai Desai, AIR 1962 Guj 68.
Supra Note 5 at Section 134.
9
Pleadings
Respondent
commission are based on the evidence of one witness, the findings are not vitiated and legally
there can be no objection in basing the conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of a
witness.47There is no rule of evidence which lays down any principle stating that the evidence
of solitary witness cannot be relied upon even though the evidence of the witness is
acceptable.48
41.
Therefore, in lieu of the above cited judicial pronouncements and the legal principles, the
petitioner submits that the finding of the enquiry commission is valid as the students were
given fair and transparent hearing by the commission and the finding is also based on the
direct oral evidence which is known to be one of most strong evidence to be relied upon.
B. Action of Principal is constitutional and valid in the eyes of law.
42.
The respondent humbly submits that the actions taken by the principal is constitutional and
valid in the eyes of law as the action of principal is a disciplinary action taken on the basis
of the report submitted by the enquiry commission. The disciplinary action comes under the
purview of the internal administration and the management of the college has the right to
administer its internal matters and there shall be no interference into the internal
administration of the college by any authority.49
43.
The 11 judges bench in the landmark judgment of T.M.A. Pai Foundation case,50while
deciding on the question whether regulation of facets of administration would interfere with
the right of administration of minorities, stated that:
So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration
are concerned, in case of a minority educational institution, the regulatory
measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as
well as the conditions of affiliation to a university or board have to be
complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day management, like the
appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control
over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not
be any external controlling agency. However, a rational procedure for the
47
48
49
50
Joginder Singh v. State, AIR 1968 Raj 63.

Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court, 1974 3 SCC 103.
INDIA CONST. Art. 30 (1).
(2002) 8 SCC 481.
10
Pleadings
Respondent
selection of teaching staff and for taking any disciplinary action has to be
evolved by the management itself.51
44.
In another leading case in which, through an Ordinance, vice-chancellor of University was

given the power to veto the disciplinary action taken against the staff of minority institution
by its management. This was held to be equivalent to interfering into the administration of
Minority Institution and hence violating Art. 30(1).52
45.
Since in this case there is no rule mentioned for the punishment or the penalty which will be
awarded to defaulters if there is any violation of the Rule of Code of Conduct, the principal
of the college has the exercised the discretionary power to arrive at the conclusion of
dismissing both the students. In the case of Commissioner of Police vs. SayedHussain53, the
Court observed that the discretionary jurisdiction of the authority should not ordinarily be
interfered with by superior Court while exercising its judicial review.
46.
In the case of Ramanuj Pandey v. State of M.P. &Ors.54, the Court held that admittedly, it is
for the disciplinary authority or the administrative authority to decide the quantum of
punishment in a case of misconduct and the role of the Court is only secondary. Further in
another case, the Court stated that it cannot be doubted that the disciplinary control over the
staffs and students of a minority educational institution is with the management.55
47.
Further in the case of C.D. Sekkilar v. R. Krishnamoorthy.56, the Court held that the power
to take disciplinary action for the maintenance of the discipline in the college is bestowed
with the Principal of the college which approves the action of the principal and also make it
valid. The Court stated that:
The maintenance of discipline, the upkeep of the necessary tone and
standards of behavior in a body of students in such a college is primarily
entrusted to the Principal or other officers of the institution. The High Court
will not interfere with the discretion of such an authority unless it is clearly
established that the authority concerned has not honestly exercised the
51
52
53
54
55
56
Id.
Supra Note 14.
(2006) 3 SCC 173: AIR 2006 SC 1246.
(2009) 7 SCC 248.
Swati Vasant Patil & Anr. v. Kandivli Education Society, 2002 (3) BomCR 51.
AIR 1952 Mad 151.
11
Pleadings
Respondent
discretion, actuated by some motive extraneous to the purpose committed

to their discretion.57
48.
The Honble High Court of Kerala in one of the case58, laid down the principle that it is clear
that the law presumes that the head of the institution must possess inherent authority and
right to do such acts as are necessary in his opinion to maintain discipline in the institution.
If any attempt is made to water-down the right of the head of the institution, it would be to
sound the death-knell of discipline in the institution.
49.
If the head of an educational institution had not in any way acted unfairly there is no reason
why the action taken cannot be sustained. In this case students were informed of the charges
against them. Then an enquiry was conducted by an enquiry commission. The students
participated in the enquiry where they were given the opportunity of fair hearing and cross
examination. The decision was taken on the basis of the findings of the enquiry commission
only thereafter the pupils were dismissed. The Honble Supreme Court laid down the
principle in a case having similar factual matrix that this is more than sufficient compliance
with the principles of natural justice in a disciplinary action against students by the head of
an educational institution.59
50.
Hence, it is stated that the contention of the petitioner that the action of principal is flawed
and baseless. The action of principal is a disciplinary action taken in order to maintain the
discipline in the college and it was based on the report submitted by the enquiry commission.
III. RULE 10 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

51. It is most humbly submitted before this Honble High Court that Rule 10 of the Code of
Conduct is not in violation of the fundamental rights mentioned under Article 14, 21 and
19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. The said rule has certain objective to be achieved and it
forms the part off Code of Conduct which is binding upon the students once they are admitted.
A. Objective of Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct.
52.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct has
been framed with certain objectives and in consideration with the institutional goals. Firstly,
Rule 10 has been framed with the objective of increasing the educational standards of the
57
58
59
Id.
Principal, Shri Narayana College v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Kerala and Anr., AIR 1996 Ker 369.
Sudheer v. Headmistress, H.S., Panoor, 1975 Ker LT 834.
12
Pleadings
Respondent
students since various studies have found that single sex education produces better academic
results
53.
In June 2005, Cambridge University published the outcome of a four-year study of gender
differences in education.60 Researchers found that the single-sex classroom format is very
effective in boosting boys performance, particularly in English and foreign languages, as
well as improving girls performance in maths and science.61
54.
A study conducted by University of Virginia which was published in 2003 indicated that
boys who attended single-sex colleges are more than twice as likely to pursue interests in
subjects such as art, music, drama, and foreign languages, compared to boys who attended
co-ed colleges.62 The study concluded that Single-sex colleges break down gender
stereotypes while co-ed colleges reinforce them.63
55.
The National Foundation for Educational Research surveyed 2,954 higher education colleges
across Britain in 2002 to determine the effect of college type i.e. single-sex and co-ed, on
academic performance of students.64 They found that both girls and boys performed
significantly better in single-sex colleges and that the girls in single-sex colleges are more
likely to take non-traditional courses which run against gender stereotypes such as advanced
Mathematics and Physics.65
56.
The Australian Council for Educational Research compared the academic performance of
students in single-sex and co-educational colleges in 2001.66 Their analysis, based on six
years of study of 270,000 students in 53 academic subjects, demonstrated that both boys and
girls educated in single-sex classrooms scored on average 15-22 percentile ranks higher than
boys and girls in co-education settings.67
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Ann M. Gallagher & James C. Kaufman, Gender Differences in Mathematics: An Integrative Psychological
Approach, Cambridge University Press, 1-16 (2005).
Id.
Amy Novotney, Coed verus single-sex ed, 42 American Psychological Association, 58 (2011).
Abigail Norfleet James & Herbert Richards, Escaping Stereotypes: Educational Attitudes of Male Alumni of
Single-Sex and Coed Colleges, 4 Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 136148 (2003).
Spielhofer, T, O'Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S. and Schagen, I., The impact of college size and single-sex
education on performance. Local Government Association, 48 (2002).
Id.
Carol E. Thom, A Comparison of the Effect of Single-Sex Versus Mixed-Sex Classes on Middle School Student
Achievement, Marshall Digital Scholar, Marshall University, 37 (2006).
Edison Trickett & Penelope Trickett, The independent school experience: aspects of the normative environment
of single-sex and coed secondary schools, 3 Journal of Educational Psychology, 374-381, (1982).
13
Pleadings
57.
Respondent
From the above reports, it can be concluded that single sex education produces better
academic results and is better suited for the students. But single sex education also has certain
drawbacks.
58.
The cons of single-sex education over co-educational set up highlighted in a 2013 technical
report on single-sex education which was prepared by Connecticuts State Education
Resource Center.68These include: promotion of gender stereotypes, undermines gender
equality, doesn't prepare students for work or family life, make exclusion acceptable, doesn't
value diversity, deprive access to mainstream programs, doesn't socialize student to be less
sexist, expensive to run two parallel programs.69
59.
Therefore, from the above reports the institution has found that sex segregation in the coeducational set up will be best suited for the students. And therefore the Rule 10 has been
incorporated in the code of Conduct.
60.
Secondly, South Asia has the highest gender gap in education in the world, with two thirds
of drop out children being girls.70 Despite the 93rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution in
2001 which made elementary education a fundamental right for all children aged 6-14, the
situation of girls remains bleak.71
61.
A small exploratory study on adolescent girls experiences of sexual harassment and abuse
while attending secondary college in Karnataka State, South India72 founded:
What the girls found most unpleasant about college was the boys who
ketta drushtiyinda nodutthare (look at us with bad eyes). Boys were said
to tease girls, write love letters and notes which they passed to girls, buy
bangles for them, and write the names of the girls whom they fancy on
their hands or on the college walls. They might compare a girl with a film
star, sing film songs and so on, suggesting a romantic liaison. This
spreading of rumours was particularly alarming to girls. Boys would also
deliberately bump into them in the college corridors and elsewhere. This
68
69
70
71
72
Kim Mearman, Single-Sex Education: The Connecticut Context Technical Report, State Education Resource
Center, 12 (2013).
Id.
Dina Craissati & Albert Motivans, Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children, UNICEF and the UNESCO
Institute for Statistics (2015).
Fiona Leach & Shashikala Sitaram, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Adolescent schoolgirls in South India,
Education Citizenship and Social Justice (2007).
Id.
14
Pleadings
Respondent
affected the girls concentration in class, especially if the ragging was from
male classmates. To the boys, ragging appeared to be driven by peer
pressure, as a fashionable activity, and by curiosity and interest in the
opposite sex. It also appeared to give them mental satisfaction as they knew
that it troubled girls and made them uncomfortable.73
62.
The Court in Murugan v. State74, where a girl died due to the incidences of eve teasing,
showed concern over these increasing incidences in the colleges and held:
The Government of Tamil Nadu noticed that eve-teasing in public places
is a perennial problem and decided to eradicate the menace of eve-teasing
as a whole and accordingly, promulgated and enacted the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Eve-teasing Act, 1998 and it came into force on the 30th day
of July, 1998. However, even after this also, many cases were reported
wherein, the victims even committed suicide due to pressures caused by Eve
Teasing and many other cases go unreported for fear of reprisals and
exposure to public shame.
63.
In 1982, Roberta Hall and Bernice Sandler published the first report on the "chilly climate"
experienced by women in coeducational college classrooms.75 Although part of the picture
for girls may be changing, in-class incidents of gendered behavior recur. Despite the
promising attention to gender bias, coeducational colleges are still "male-dominated and
male-controlled cultural institutions.76 An American Association of University Women
("AAUW") survey of over 1600 high college students found that eighty-five percent of the
female students had experienced sexual harassment at college.77
64.
The Court in U.S. Verma, Principal, D.P.S., Faridabad v. National Commission For Women
& Ors.78, in relation to sexual harassment discussed:
73
74
75
76
77
78
Id.
2008-2-LW(Crl)1059.
ROBERTA M. HALL & BERNICE R. SANDLER, Association Of Am. Colleges, THE Class Room Climate: A Chilly
One For Women? (1982). The report was part of the Association of American Colleges Project on the Status and
Education of Women.
Cornelius Riordan, The Future of Single-Sex Colleges, in american ass'n univ. women educ. found., separated by
sex: a critical look at single-sex education for girls 53, 54 (1998).
American ass'n univ. women educ. found., hostile hallways: the AAUW survey on sexual harassment in america's
colleges 5, 7 (1993).
AIR 2001 DHC 1730.
15
Pleadings
Respondent
In India we are in denial that sexual harassment can happen in a place

like college. Maybe because of this mind set, there is no proper mechanism
to deal with the issue of sexual harassment against students in majority of
the colleges in India. the Supreme Court said that DPS society- which is
known for the quality of education it imparts through its several colleges,
in the country, unfortunately, in this instance, does not emerge with a role
that a model employer should have displayed, and was expected of it.79
65.
In order to deal with sexual harassment, the co-educational colleges in India have adopted
the practice of sex segregation. And being a Catholic Institution and in compliance with the
Catholic principles, where women should be respected80 the college has made this rule.
B. Rule 10 upholds Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
66.
Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct upholds Article 14 of the constitution as it is not

discriminatory in nature and there is a reasonable nexus between the law and the object to be
achieved.
(i). The classification has reasonable objective and is based on intelligible differentia.
67.
Classification in itself may not always be impermissible, provided of course the classification
is reasonable.81 A classification to be permissible must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others left out of the group,
and must have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by such
classification.82
68.
Explaining the test required to be passed for making a permissible classification, the Court
in State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar83discussed as under:
In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that
the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that that
79
80
81
82
83
Id.
James A. Borland, "Women in the Life and Teachings of Jesus," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood, 115 (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Crossway (1991).
Chayan Kr. Roy v. Chairman/Chairperson, Central Selection Committee (M), 2005 (2) CHN 165.
Id.
1952 SCR 284.
16
Pleadings
Respondent
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved

by the Act.84
69.
The classification by Rule 10 is founded on intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus

with the objective of the rule. The objective of the said rule is better academic performance
of students and also to prevent increasing harassment in the colleges. And therefore the said
rule makes a permissible classification which is not violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
(ii). No discrimination by such rule.
70.
The Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct does not infringe Article 14 as the said rule is away
from any kind of discrimination and for claiming Article 14, discrimination needs to be
shown.85 And if there is no hostile plea of discrimination alleged in writ petition then there
can be no question of violation of Article 14.86 The said rule does not lead to any kind of
discrimination and hence is not violative of Article 14.
71.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Assns.87, the Court discussed
the scope of Article 14 and held:
What Article 14 prohibits is discrimination and not classification. The said
article confers equality before law and equal protection of laws. It prohibits
the state from denying the persons or class of persons equal treatment,
provided they are equals and similarly situated. It however does not forbids
classification. Every classification to be legal, valid and permissible, must
fulfill the twin test, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on
an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped
together from others, and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation
to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.88
72.
Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct does not lead to
any kind of discrimination and it also satisfies the above stated twin test.
84
85
86
87
88
Id.
Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 2 SCC 175.
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, (1974) 2 SCC 348, See also D.C.M Ltd. v. Assistant
Engineer (HMT Sub-Division), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Kota, AIR 1988 Raj 64.
(2008) 7 SCC 231.
Supra Note 83.
17
Pleadings
73.
Respondent
Rule 10 has a specific objective to be achieved and is not unreasonable and when an action
or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide
manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be
described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.89 And therefore not violative of Article 14
of the Constitution.
74.
Under the Act or the Regulations framed, if no procedure for holding such consultations had
been laid down then, In that situation it was open to the competent authorities to evolve their
own procedure. Such a procedure of taking a decision upon deliberations does not fall foul
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.90 And the college authorities are well within their
limits in taking disciplinary actions against the students.
(iii).The rule is not anti-thesis to arbitrariness.
75.
The tests of arbitrary action is applicable to executive action do not necessarily apply to
delegated legislation. In order to strike down a delegated legislation as arbitrary it has to be
established that there is manifest arbitrariness. In order to be described as arbitrary, it must
be shown that it was not reasonable and manifestly arbitrary.91 The expression
arbitrary means act done in a unreasonable manner as fixed or done capriciously or at
pleasure without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, nonrational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment depending on the will alone.92
76.
Rule 10 is formulated in regard to the specific objective and therefore is not unreasonable
and hence is not violative of Article 14. Eminent jurist H.M. Seervai is of the opinion that
that the new Doctrine of arbitrariness is untenable for various reasons and instead of
enlarging the fundamental right to equality, it has narrowed it to one aspect of equality. 93 It
89
90
91
92
93
Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157;See also Pupul v. Rashtrasant Tudokji Maharaj
Nagpur University, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1873; Abhinav Yashwant Deshpande v. Gujarat University, 2014
SCC OnLine Guj 8314.
Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja, (2003) 8 SCC 567.
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188; See also Srm University v. The Secretary, 2010 SCC
OnLine Mad 3478; Brihanumumbai Mahanagarpalika v. Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, 2012
SCC OnLine Bom 1567; M/s. Nestle India Ltd. v. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India & Ors,
2015 (6) ABR 74.
Kokila Devi v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2015 (1) AJR 248.
2 DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1397 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 8th Edition).
18
Pleadings
Respondent
is, therefore, not correct to say that every arbitrary action 'must necessarily involve the
negation of equality' or equality of treatment.94
77.
Therefore it can be concluded there must be any kind of discrimination in order to claim
protection under Article 14. And no question of arbitrariness can be raised since the said rule
has an objective to be achieved and hence not violative of Article 14.
C. Rule 10 does not violates Article 19 of the Constitution.
78.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that Rule 10 in no way restricts the students
to exercise their freedom of speech and expression and also entitles them to exercise their
freedom to assemble.
(i) Rule 10 upholds Article 19(1) (a).
79.
The Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct is not violative of freedom of speech and expression95
of the students because there is no restriction on interaction and students can also interact by
sitting in different benches too. Therefore there is no question of violation of this freedom
by the said rule.
80.
"Freedom of Expression is the right to say what one wants through any form of
communication and media, with the only limitation being to cause another harm in character
or reputation by lying or misleading words".96 Any kind of communication is not infringed
because there is no restriction on communication and students can also interact by sitting in
different benches too
81.
Freedom of expression, as learned writers have observed, has four broad social purposes to
serve: (i) it helps an individual to attain self fulfilment, (ii) it assists in the discovery of truth,
(iii)it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making and (iv) it
provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance
between stability and social change.97 All members of society should be able to form their
own beliefs and communicate them freely to others.98 This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without any interference.99
94
95
96
97
98
99
A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corpn., (1984) 3 SCC 316, See also Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 5 SCC 1; Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510; People's Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476; Dainik Sambad v. State of Tripura, 1987 SCC OnLine Gau 19.
INDIA CONST. ART. 19(1) (a).
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2nd ed.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
Id.
Publisher, Sportstar Magazine, Chennai v. Girish Sharma, 2000 SCC OnLine Mad 896.
19
Pleadings
82.
Respondent
The Court in Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand

Patwardhan100, discussed the scope of freedom of expression:
The Constitution of India guarantees everyone the right to freedom of
expression. India is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and therefore bound to respect the right to freedom of
expression guaranteed by Article 19 thereof, which states:(1) Everyone
shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.(2) Everyone shall
have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in form of art, or through any
other media of his choice.101
83.
Therefore the essence of such freedom is that people should be able to communicate freely.
Rule 10 is neither restricting any kind of free communication nor restricting any freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, but is restricting merely sitting
on the same bench.102Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
any interference.
84.
The scope of freedom of speech and expression is discussed in Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India103 and it mentions various interpretations which this freedom has received. And none
of the interpretation is such wide as to include restriction on sitting on same bench as
violation of Article 19(1) (a).
85.
Therefore it can be concluded that the term 'expression' does not include all kinds of conduct
and mere restriction on sitting on the same bench will not amount to violation of the freedom
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a).
86.
The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble
peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise
100
101
102
103
(2006) 8 SCC 433.

Id.
Supra Note 3.
(2015) 5 SCC 1.
20
Pleadings
Respondent
those freedoms in whatever place they please.104 The Court in Rly. Board v. Niranjan
Singh105held:
It is true that the freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution are very
valuable freedoms and this Court would resist abridging the ambit of those
freedoms except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The fact that
the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble
peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that
they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please.106
The school authorities have certain powers to maintain discipline in the school premises for
which they form code of conduct. And the authorities are well within their limits while setting
up such a rule.
(ii). Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct upholds Article 19(1) (b).
87.
It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that the contention of the petitioner that is the
rule 10 of the code violates Article 19(1) (b) of the constitution is flawed and does not stands
valid in the eyes of the law. Article 19(1) (b) guarantees the right to the citizens that they can
assemble peacefully without arms at any place and time subject to reasonable restriction
mentioned under Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India. The Rule 10 of the Code merely
states that no male and female shall sit on same bench. It means that no person will sit on
a bench where the opposite gender is sitting and it nowhere restricts the students or staffs to
assemble at any place.
88.
The respondent submits that the Art. 19(1) (b) will not be attracted here in this case as right
of assembly would mean that a constitutional right given to the citizens to gather peacefully
for public expression of religion, politics or grievances.107 The main purpose and objective
of educational institution is to impart uninterrupted quality education to the students and it is
not a place to perform such public expression of politics and grievances.
89.
104
105
106
107
The court with reference to Article 19 observed that,
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commr. of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227.

(1969) 1 SCC 502.
Id; See also NPS Employees Reformation Association v. The General Manager, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1539;
Dejo Kappen v. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) KLJ 421; Mechineni Kishan Rao v. Commissioner of Police,
Hyderabad, AIR 2002 AP 457.
Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Thomson West, 2004.
21
Pleadings
Respondent
It is open to the educational institutions, either majority or minority, to

prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students
from organizing or attending meetings other than the official ones within
the college campus and such a restriction would not violate Article 19(1)
(a) or (c) of the Constitution of India.108
90.
The Kerala High Court in the Sojan Francis109s case held that:
For maintaining excellence in education it is important that the teaching
faculty and members of staff of the educational institution should perform
their duties in the manner in which it is required to be done according to
the rules and instructions. For giving effect to the objectives for which the
educational institution was established either by minority community or by
majority community, they could lay down their own rules and regulations
governing the teachers, non-teaching staff as well as students. For giving
effect to Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1), educational institutions can lay down
their own code of conduct to be made applicable to the management,
teaching staff, non-teaching staff and the students.110
91.
Therefore by going through the above cited case we can infer that the management of the
minority institution or majority community can lay down their code of conduct to be followed
by the Management, teachers and non-teaching staff as well as the students. Hence, it is
humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the finding which the respondent wants the
Court to make is Article 19(1) (b) does not get violated in any circumstances by this Rule 10
of the Code of Conduct.
D. The Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct is in consonance with Article 21.
94.
The Respondents humbly submits before the Honble Court that rule 10 of the code does not
violate Article 21 of the Constitution. The said Article states that no person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law111. The
propositions that can be drawn by reading the bare provision of Art. 21 are firstly, it is not
absolute in nature and secondly, it can be taken away by a procedure established by law.
108
109
110
111
Supra Note 21.

Id.
Id.
INDIA CONST. Art, 21.
22
Pleadings
95.
Respondent
It is well established principle set by the Indian Judiciary in the various judicial
pronouncements that, in each case where a person complains of the deprivation of his life or
personal liberty, the Court has to decide the two major facets of Article 21: firstly, Whether
there is a law authorizing such deprivation and Secondly, whether the procedure is
reasonable, fair and just. 112
96.
The Principal dismissed the students because they violated the Rule 10 of the Code of
Conduct.113 The respondent submits before the Honble Court that the Rule 10 satisfies the
tests of Article 14 as it has a reasonable objective to be achieved. This rule was framed by
the College in order to provide safe environment to girls so that they must not have fear and
apprehension of being maltreated by anyone in the college. Since there is a rise of violence
against female students in college campus, both the female students and their parents are
hesitant to send their kids to college.114 Thus, to protect the education of girls and to allow
them a proper and safe environment of education, the college has come up with this rule.
97.
Another objective of this rule is to uplift the educational standards of the college as it has
been construed by numerous studies conducted by the reputed Universities that such practice
of segregation leads to better outcomes from the students in academics. Addition to the
reasonable objective that this rule has, the respondent submits that this rule does not
discriminate amongst any student.115 It applies to both male and female equally and also not
violating the equality clause mentioned under Article 14. Thus, it can be inferred from the
above that the rule 10 is perfectly valid under Article 14 and it is a reasonable law.
98.
The rule nowhere restricts any form of speech and expression of any students and they are
free to exercise their freedom of speech and expression in any form of communication they
want. They are free to share their opinions, views, ideas or they can also easily interact with
each other without any restriction. The rule only comes into the picture when a male and a
female student are sitting on a same bench, otherwise not. This freedom can be exercised
either by standing or even by sitting on a different bench and it is not necessary to sit only
on a same bench then only they can exercise their speech and expression.
112
113
114
115
Francis v. Union Territory, AIR 1981 SC 746 ( 3).

Supra Note 3.
Supra Note 77.
Supra Note 84.
23
Pleadings
99.
Respondent
Therefore, the test which was laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in leading
judgment of Maneka Gandhis case116 that if any law abridges the personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 has to satisfy the test of Article 14 and Article 19, is been taken
care of.
100. With regard to the procedure followed by the college is reasonable, just and fair, the
respondents submits that in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India117, the Supreme
Court of India discussed the basic cardinal Principle of Article 21 that is the procedure should
be just fair and reasonable. The excerpts of said discussion is:
There was some discussion in A. K. Gopalans case in regard to the nature
of the procedure required to be prescribed under Article 21 and at least
three of the learned Judges out of five expressed themselves strongly in
favour of the view that the procedure cannot be any arbitrary, fantastic or
oppressive procedure. Fazal Ali, J., who was in a minority, went to the
farthest limit in saying that the procedure must include the four essentials
set out in Prof. Willi's book on Constitutional Law, namely, notice,
opportunity to be heard, impartial tribunal and ordinary course of
procedure. Patanjali Sastri, J. did not go as far as that but he did say that
certain basic principles emerged as the constant factors known to all those
procedures and they formed the core of the procedure established by law.
Mahajan, J., also observed that Article 21 requires that there should be
some form of proceeding before a person can be condemned either in
respect of his life or his liberty and it negatives the idea of fantastic,
arbitrary and oppressive forms of proceedings.118
101. The college authority followed a proper procedure in order to come to the conclusion that
the students have violated the Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct. There was an enquiry
commission which was headed by the Head of Department of Political Science which shows
that such senior authority was in-charge of commission. Due process of hearing and crossexamination was given to the students so that they can prove their innocence before the
116
117
118
AIR 1978 SC 597.

Id.
Id.
24
Pleadings
Respondent
commission and the students were also given the opportunity of cross examination of the eye
witness.119
102. Therefore, the respondent submits to the Honble Court that said rule does not violates
Article 21 since the law in this case is valid law as established by the respondent in previously
dealt issues and the procedure which was followed by the respondent also satisfies the basic
Principles of natural justice and hence it is just fair and reasonable.
E. The Doctrine of ut res magis valeat quam pereat will be applicable.
104. The jurisprudential meaning of the Doctrine is it is better for a thing to have effect than to be
made void.120 Similarly, the rule which is for the benefit of the society as it is a step towards
preventing any sort of violence against female student as well as uplift the educational
standards in the college should continue to have effect rather being declared as ultra vires.
105. The Doctrine has been used at many instances in the legal machinery of the country. The
Principle laid down is, if possible the Court will construe a statute or statutory instrument
in such a manner as results in its constitutional validity rather than its invalidity.121
106. In the case of Kanaiyalal v. Indumali122 it was being held that a statute should not be so
interpreted that it might offend against fundamental right or other mandatory constitutional
prohibition for no such intention could be imputed to the legislature.
107. Here, the issue of the intention of the legislature can also be raised as it laid down the
Principle that if a statutory provision is opens to more than one interpretation the Court has
to choose that one representation which represents the true intention of the legislature.123
108. Hence, rather looking at the negative aspect which is very minimal we should be focused on
maintaining the effect of the said Rule for the betterment of the society. As between two
possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by
other valid, our plain duty is to adapt that which will save the Act.124
119
Moot Proposition 3.
10 DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 11,537 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 8th Edition).
121
Kamra v. NIA, (1992) 2 SCC 36, See also, DTC v. DTC Mazdoor, AIR 1991 SC 101, (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600.
122
AIR 1958 SC 444.
123
Venkataswami Naidu v. NarasiamNaraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361, See also District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron &
Steel Co. AIR 2001 SC 3134, Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, AIR 2002 SC 1432.
124
KedarNath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955(469), See also Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC
1638.
120
25
Prayer
Respondent
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
counsels on behalf of the Respondent humbly submit before the Honble Court to kindly dismiss
this Writ Petition and declare and adjudge that:
I. The Governing Body of St. Martin College has the power to formulate the Code of Conduct
for Students.
II. The Punishment given to the students is proportionate to their misconduct and is justified.
III. The Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct is intra-vires of Part III of The Constitution of India.
And pass any other order which this Honble Court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and
good conscience.
And for this act of kindness of your lordship the respondent shall be duty bound, as ever pray.
On behalf of the St. Martin College

____________________________
Counsels for the Respondent
XIV

Memorial For Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC- P

SUNITHA AND AJITH

ST. MARTIN COLLEGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

C. The Doctrine of ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur is having its applicability

THE PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL OF THE STUDENTS IS VALID

A. The finding of Enquiry Commission is legal and valid as it followed the

B. Action of Principal is constitutional and valid in the eyes of law

III. RULE 10 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

B. Rule 10 upholds Article 14 of the Constitution of India

(i).The classification has reasonable objective and is based on

(ii).No discrimination by such rule -

D. The Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct is in consonance with Article 21

E. The Doctrine of ut res magis valeat quam pereat will be applicable

(iii). The rule is not anti-thesis to arbitrariness

C. Rule 10 does not violates Article 19 of the Constitution

(ii). Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct upholds Article 19(1) (b)

A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corpn., (1984) 3 SCC 316

Abhinav Yashwant Deshpande v. Gujarat University, 2014 SCC OnLine

Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, (1974) 2 SCC

Berhampur Diocesan Catholic School Managing Committee v. State of

Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Ghanshyam Das

Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika v. Secretary, Bar Council of

Chayan Kr. Roy v. Chairman/Chairperson, Central Selection Committee

Deep Chand v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 648

Dejo Kappen v. State of Kerala, 2012(2)KLJ421

Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, (2006) 8 SCC 433

Elel Hotels Investments Ltd. v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 698

Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) SC 333

Express Hotels (P) Ltd v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 3 SCC 677

Francis v. Union Territory, AIR 1981 SC 746

Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45

Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641

Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan, 1996 (2) SSC 145

Joginder Singh v. State, AIR 1968 Raj 63

Jugrraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1971 SC 761

K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1985 SC 660

Kamra v. NIA, (1992) 2 SCC 36,

Kanaiyalal v. Indumali, AIR 1958 SC 444

Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955(469)

Kokila Devi v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2015(1)AJR248

Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina&Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 124 : AIR 1979 SC 52

Mechineni Kishan Rao v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, AIR

National Engg. Industries v. Kishan Bhageria 1988 Supp SCC 82

National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal Choudhury & Anr.,

P.V. Mani v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Ker 86

Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. U.O.I, (1973) 2 SCC 543

Pradeep Kumar Biswa v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and

Ramanuj Pandey v. State of M.P. &Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 248

Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, 1969 SCR (2) 73

S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662

S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1

Samarth Shiksha Samiti v. Directorate of Education and Anr., 2012 IAD

Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

Sidhajbai v. State of Gujarat, 1963 SCR (3) 837

Srm University v. The Secretary, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3478

State of Bihar v. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Assns., (2008) 7 SCC

State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205

State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284

Sudheer v. Headmistress, H.S., Panoor, 1975 Ker LT 834

Swati VasantPatil&Anr. v. Kandivli Education Society, 2002 (3)