The Gujarat High Court on Monday took exception to the attire of a young girl student from Indian Institute of Technology-Gandhinagar (IIT Gandhinagar) who was present in court for the hearing of her case [Samraggi Debroy v. The Director of IIT Gandhinagar & Anr.]

While personal choice cannot be curtailed, it must still conform to the dignity and decorum of the forum, Justice Nirzar S Desai said.

Justice Desai drew a distinction between personal liberty in dressing and appropriateness in a court setting.

“Not problematic. See, everyone has a choice and everyone can exercise their option and choice, but it depends upon the place at which that person is visiting.”

Justice Desai also remarked on the broader ethos of courtroom conduct, stating decorum and discipline are essential to its functioning.

“We all consider this (Court) to be temple of justice and every religious place has its own tradition, rules and decency,” he said.

He also underlined that courtroom appearance forms part of the broader discipline expected in judicial spaces.

“If someone is coming to the court, he or she must be in a proper attire,” the judge said.

The remarks came during the hearing of the plea by the student challenging disciplinary action taken against her, including removal from hostel and related sanctions imposed by the institute.

Senior Advocate Percy Kavina argued that the petitioner’s attire was irrelevant to the case.

“I am respectfully submitting to your lordship that the attire of the petitioner must and cannot affect the court's discretion" said Kavina.

While Justice Desai agreed that attire does not determine judicial outcomes, he indicated that conduct and discipline, whether in institutions or in court, cannot be viewed in isolation from the setting in which they arise.

As submissions grew more pointed, the Justice Desai reminded Kavina of the need for restraint in courtroom advocacy.

“First, let there be less aggression on your part. You are propagating a cause of student. And you have, vidya vinayen shobhate (knowledge is adorned by humility). Vidya vinay vagar na shobhe (knowledge without humility is not adorned).”

Following the exchange, Kavina requested that the petitioner to step out of the courtroom while arguments proceeded on the merits of the case.

Kavina argued that the disciplinary action against the petitioner stemmed from a series of disputes, including an issue over the reduction of a research grant and allegations arising from her presence in a hostel room of a male student who was abroad.

He contented that the proceedings against her were procedurally flawed and disproportionate and the inquiry against her was rushed and lacking fairness.

He further submitted that the student had already suffered the consequences of earlier sanctions and that continuation of the punishment would amount to “punishment upon punishment,” particularly given that her academic term was nearing completion.

During the course of the hearing, the Court also questioned aspects of the defence, including the admitted fact that the student had access to the key of a male student’s room.

Justice Desai observed that conduct may be viewed differently depending on institutional norms, noting that what may appear acceptable to one person may be considered improper in another context.

“Every human being can commit mistake, to err is human, but at the same time one should have the spirit to accept it, to apologise for her behaviour, and not to threaten by legal (actions),” he said.

While emphasising the need for accountability, he further added,

“I don't want to spoil any student's career, but at the same time the student must know what is wrong is wrong and that is impermissible.”

Ultimately, the Court issued a notice to the Director of IIT Gandhinagar but declined to grant any immediate interim relief to the student.

The matter will be heard next on April 29.