The Bombay High Court has quashed the compulsory retirement of a Tata Institute of Social Sciences professor, holding that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct found, which centred on his starting a WhatsApp group without the Institute’s permission and without any personal gain being established. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court held that a penalty out of proportion to the gravity of the misconduct violates Article 14, found the inquiry findings perverse, and reinstated the professor with 50% back wages.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Bar Council of India’s Rules of Legal Education, 2008, affirming its authority to inspect law colleges and maintain educational standards. The court dismissed the petition from SNDT Women’s University Law School, reinforcing that the Advocates Act, 1961, supersedes other educational legislation regarding legal education oversight.
