The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by a father challenging his 14-year-old son’s expulsion from an Indore school over offensive Instagram memes, including communal content. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan is examining matter.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court issued a notice regarding a plea filed by the father of a 14-year-old boy who was expelled from his Indore school for creating an Instagram account that circulated offensive memes.
The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, was reviewing the plea.
The expulsion came after allegations that the boy, along with two other students, had set up a private Instagram account and shared memes considered offensive to teachers, including one with purported communal overtones.
Justice Bhuyan commented,
“Children are learning these things from home. Some memes with communal overtones must not be encouraged,”
The plea challenges a ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed the father’s petition and upheld the school’s decision to expel the boy midway through the 2024–25 Class IX academic session.
The High Court highlighted that the case involved not just a single meme but a series of posts. As a result, the student’s behavior could not be viewed as an isolated incident. The court also stated that the student clearly understood the seriousness of his actions, rendering an apology ineffective.
Distressed by the High Court’s decision, the father approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted,
“Children are learning these things from home,”
Advocate Nipun Saxena, representing the petitioner, argued that the punishment imposed on the boy was excessively severe relative to the alleged misconduct. He contended that it was never established that the boy had shared the memes and that the previous courts had only assumed he was responsible.
Saxena argued that mens rea should not be attributed to a child under these circumstances, cautioning that such a stance would grant schools unchecked authority to monitor children’s phones and online activities.
He also pointed out that while the High Court acknowledged the child had expressed “contrition,” it still asserted that a strong message needed to be conveyed to society.
In response to the Court’s concerns, Saxena clarified that the boy’s intent could not be imputed to him given that the Instagram account was private and managed by at least three children, all of whom were expelled.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on February 13. Advocates involved for the petitioner-father include Nipun Saxena, Astha Sharma, Shreyas Awasthi, Aadya Pandey, Monal Prasad, and Deepali Dabas.
Case Title: Jitendra Yadav vs State of MP
Read Attachment: