The Gujarat High Court objected to a girl student’s attire, stating that dignity and decorum of the court must be upheld. The Bench questioned her clothing, sparking a tense exchange as she challenged IIT Gandhinagar’s disciplinary action.
The Gujarat High Court raised objections to a girl student’s attire, stating that “dignity and decorum of the court must be maintained by everyone.”
During the hearing, Justice Nirjar Desai questioned the petitioner, who was pursuing a Master’s programme at the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar (IITGn), after she appeared wearing an open shirt over a T-shirt.
A tense exchange followed between the judge and senior advocate Percy Kavina, representing the student, as the petitioner challenged disciplinary action taken by IITGn.
As the proceedings began, Kavina argued that the student’s clothing should not influence the court’s discretion, stating,
“I am respectfully submitting to your lordship that the attire of the petitioner must and can’t affect the court’s discretion.”
Justice Desai responded that while this was not the point, the matter involved discipline within an organisation, adding that the issue matters when disciplinary action against a student is being challenged.
Kavina then said,
“But I think your lordship must condone what your lordship thinks of a problematic attire.”
Justice Desai replied that it was not “problematic,” but emphasized that everyone has a choice and that choices depend on the place and context, cautioning that arrogance should not show in one’s actions or words.
The judge further said he did not want to spoil the student’s career, but also stressed that a student should understand what is wrong and what is impermissible.
Justice Desai told Kavina that he was not acting against the petitioner, but said the AOR (advocate on record) had failed to maintain the court’s dignity and decorum. He also remarked that the court is a temple of justice and drew an analogy to how religious places have rules and decency. He asked Kavina what the way forward should be.
During the hearing, the court also brought up Kavina’s alleged aggression and the language he used, while Kavina later regretted his remarks and stated he was withdrawing his words.
The student is currently facing multiple disciplinary proceedings initiated by IITGn. In one instance, she was penalised for allegedly rude behaviour after requesting the remaining tour allowance for her fieldwork.
The institute’s inquiry found her guilty and directed her to either vacate the hostel or perform community service; she chose community service. In another case, she was expelled after being found living in the boys’ hostel.
She said she had visited only to collect materials, noting that she had access to the room key because the student allotted the room was abroad. Kavina argued before the court that she was being “punished” for filing complaints rather than being treated as “servile.”
Kavina also submitted that campus norms have evolved over the years, pointing to examples of students moving more freely between boys’ and girls’ hostels in institutions such as NID and CEPT.
The court, however, observed that students must follow the discipline prescribed by their institutes regardless of personal views.
The High Court issued notice and kept the matter for further hearing on April 29.
Case Title: Samraggi Debroy v. The Director of IIT Gandhinagar & Anr.