In a significant relief to a 13-year-old boy rusticated from a school in Indore over allegations of circulating an objectionable meme, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) to issue him an admit card for the Class 10 board examination scheduled from February 17.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised the importance of not derailing the student’s academic future over one incident. “In the circumstances, we direct the CISCE to permit the petitioner’s son to take the examination by issuing Admit Card/Hall ticket,” the bench ordered.
The Court allowed the school (respondent no. 5) to facilitate the boy’s appearance in the examination in a separate room away from other students, and further directed it to conduct an internal assessment in Physical Education and Socially Useful Productive Work (SUPW) and submit the marks to the CISCE.
During the hearing, the bench orally rebuked the school’s approach, observing:
“Instead of reforming him, you (school) have decided to rusticate him and dissociate yourself from him. As a school, you should have taken the responsibility to reform the child but you rusticated him just because you said he was a bad boy.”
The court’s intervention came after a plea was filed challenging a November 2025 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had upheld the school’s decision to expel the boy mid-way through his Class 9 session.
Advocate Nipun Saxena, representing the petitioner, argued that the school’s action was disproportionate. He pointed out that the boy had been continuing his studies privately with the help of tutors, and the denial of permission to appear in the board exams would cost him an entire academic year.
Saxena further contended that the child was punished without any genuine attempt at rehabilitation, despite the fact that the Instagram account where the meme was posted was private and not accessible to the school or the public.
The school’s counsel strongly objected to the Supreme Court’s intervention, claiming that allowing the boy to take the exam would “demoralise” school authorities and undermine disciplinary measures.
The petition, filed by the boy’s father, described the rustication as “severely jeopardising the continuity and stability” of his son’s education, particularly since registration for the Class 10 examination is typically done in Class 9 as per CISCE rules.
The plea alleged that the punishment was rooted more in a desire to “protect the reputation” of the school rather than a fair disciplinary process. It stated:
“Imposition of harsh penalties such as expulsion/rustication to a child for creating an Instagram private account with memes that are not even attributable to the child and to invoke the criminal law principle of ‘deterrence’ is antithetical to the established cannons of law.”
Earlier, while issuing notice in the case, the apex court had observed that minors often imbibe inappropriate behaviour from their environment and that memes with communal overtones should be discouraged, but also hinted at the need for a balanced and reformatory approach in school discipline.
