The Allahabad High Court recently overturned a single-judge’s order directing a university student to stand at the campus gate for 30 minutes each day for a month with a placard promising 'not to misbehave with girls' [Harsh Awana v. Chairman U.G.C. Bahadurshah Zafar Road & Ors.].

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that such a condition was unjustified and ordered its removal while upholding other disciplinary directions.

"Direction of such nature wherein the appellant would carry a placard with message that he will never misbehave with any girl and stand at the gate of the University carrying placard for 30 minutes for 30 days, is not only humiliating but would cast a permanent scar on the character of the appellant, which, in the circumstances of the case, is not called for," said the Court.

The appeal arose from an order dated October 29, 2025, passed by a single-judge in a petition filed by the student challenging his rustication by the university.

While cancelling the rustication, the single-judge took note of the student’s background, observing that his father was a poor farmer who had made great efforts to support his education.

At the same time, the single-judge had imposed several conditions on the student, including maintaining 95 percent attendance in remaining classes, submitting leave applications for any absence, not leaving the university premises during class hours, filing a written apology within 72 hours and the controversial placard requirement.

The order also warned that he could be rusticated again without notice if any new complaint surfaced, and asked the police to post an anti-romeo mobile squad at the university gates during opening and closing hours.

The student then approached the High Court, arguing the placard punishment was humiliating and could harm his future.

The university defended the single-judge’s order, arguing that the original petition should not have been entertained at all and that the conditions were meant to be corrective and humane.

The Court on February 4, held that directions relating to attendance, written apology, and police deployment were justified in view of the student’s conduct and previous attendance record.

However, they made it clear that forcing him to make a public display with a placard was unacceptable and could not be allowed in any situation.

Hence, it set aside the placard condition and directed if the student had been rusticated again only because he refused to carry out that requirement, he should be given a fresh chance to submit the written apology.

Upon compliance, the rustication would be cancelled and he would have to follow the attendance- related rules laid down by the court.

The student was represented by advocate Gopal Srivastava.

Senior Counsel Jagdish Pathak along with advocates Anubhav Singh and Pratik Chandra represented the respondents.

[Read Order]