The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a father’s petition challenging his son’s expulsion from school after the Class 9 student created an Instagram page containing derogatory memes targeting teachers, including posts that ridiculed a teacher’s religious identity.
Justice Pranay Verma, in his order pronounced on October 9, observed that the student had posted a teacher’s photograph with offensive captions containing communal references. The court noted that the content was designed to hurt religious sentiments and displayed hostility towards a teacher based on faith.
The bench ruled that the conduct reflected revenge-seeking, vulgarity and defiance, amounting to serious indiscipline. The school acted within its rights in refusing to admit the student to Class 10, the court held.
The case began in February 2025 when the school discovered that three students, including the petitioner’s son, had created an Instagram page using the school’s name and logo. The page featured multiple memes mocking teachers, several with communal undertones.
When confronted, the students admitted their misconduct and submitted written apologies. However, the school permitted them to appear for their Class 9 final examinations but barred them from continuing to Class 10.
The father approached the MP State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which directed the school to reinstate the student and provide counselling. When the school refused, the father filed a writ petition in the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the school was bound to follow the Commission’s order and that the expulsion violated Article 21-A of the Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009. He contended that his son lacked the maturity to understand the seriousness of his actions and that further punishment would damage his future prospects.
The school, represented by advocate Tarang Chelawat, maintained that the students had used teachers’ photographs without permission and posted memes with communal overtones targeting a teacher’s faith. The posts created an insecure atmosphere for teachers, the school argued. It added that the student had previously been warned about disruptive behaviour including bullying and aggression, but counselling had failed.
Justice Verma held that the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights possesses only advisory powers and cannot resolve disputes between parties. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala and Madras High Courts, the bench noted that the Commission’s directions are recommendatory, not binding.
The court examined Instagram posts and chat logs submitted by the school in a sealed cover. The material revealed religiously offensive content alongside other derogatory posts. One teacher’s photograph was posted with abusive language and communal references. Other posts depicted a lady teacher as “Spiderwoman”, another as “Iron Lady”, and compared one teacher to a dog. A female teacher was ridiculed based on her physique and labelled “Bitter Gourd”. The chat logs also contained references to female students with suggestions to defame them.
Justice Verma rejected the claim that the student was too immature to grasp the consequences. The court found that the material demonstrated a pattern rather than an isolated incident, showing the student possessed adequate understanding of his actions. The posts also revealed an intent to retaliate against the school for unspecified disciplinary measures.
The court emphasised that school principals possess inherent authority to maintain discipline and morality, and that judicial review in such cases is limited. “This court cannot sit in appeal over the school’s disciplinary decision,” Justice Verma observed.
The bench noted that the school had issued a fresh transfer certificate describing the student as having “good character”, replacing an earlier certificate that mentioned “bad character”. This removes any barrier to securing admission elsewhere, the court said.
The petition was dismissed with the court ruling that the school’s decision was neither illegal nor arbitrary. The case underscores the disciplinary authority vested in educational institutions, particularly when student conduct involves content that targets individuals based on religion.
