
Delhi HC to DPS, Dwarka: Using bouncers to block students' entry over fees is ‘mental harassment'
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta remarked, "This court is constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging "bouncers" to physically block the entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only a disregard for the dignity of a child but also a fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in society.
"
The court was hearing a petition filed by parents of students who had been expelled last month for non-payment of fees. It was informed that the school later withdrew its expulsion orders following a directive from a coordinate bench, reinstating the affected students.
The court emphasised that any form of public shaming or intimidation over financial issues, especially using force or coercive means, constitutes mental harassment and undermines a child's psychological well-being.
"The use of bouncers fosters a climate of fear, humiliation, and exclusion, which is incompatible with the ethos of education," the bench stated.
While noting that the school is entitled to charge reasonable for its operations—to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff, and provide a conducive learning environment—the court underlined that an educational institution cannot be equated with a commercial enterprise.
"The driving force of a school—especially one managed by a reputed society—must be public welfare, nation-building, and holistic child development, not profit maximisation.
The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise," the court observed.
As the school had reinstated the students, the court said the petition had become largely moot. However, it directed that any future action under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, must be preceded by proper notice and an opportunity for the affected students or their guardians to respond.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Adults have right to marry without family interference, says Delhi high court
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the personal liberty of two consenting adults to marry and live together peacefully is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a recent ruling, the court emphasised that family opposition cannot override this autonomy. The Delhi high court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family.(File Photo/PTI) Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family. The couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a "missing" complaint, was later closed. To ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without delay. Justice Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.


India.com
5 hours ago
- India.com
Delhi High Court: Adults Have Right To Marry Without Family Interference
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the personal liberty of two consenting adults to marry and live together peacefully is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a recent ruling, the court emphasised that family opposition cannot override this autonomy. Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family. The couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a "missing" complaint, was later closed. To ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without delay. Justice Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.


News18
6 hours ago
- News18
Delhi High Court: Adults have right to marry without family interference
New Delhi [India], August 14 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the personal liberty of two consenting adults to marry and live together peacefully is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a recent ruling, the court emphasised that family opposition cannot override this Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a 'missing" complaint, was later ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity. (ANI)