The Bombay high court on Tuesday granted relief to two engineering students from giving them strict action by the college administration for stealing items such as chocolates, potato chips and pens during a conference. However, the court directed both students to do community service for two hours daily for two months.

Students of Birla Institute of Technology (BITS)-Pilani, Goa, approached the high court after the college authority maintained its earlier punishment of charging ₹50,000 as a fine and debarring them from appearing for one of the semester exams after they were caught for allegedly stealing the items at the event.

In November last year, five students were apprehended for allegedly stealing potato chips, chocolates, sanitisers, pens, notepads, cellphone stands, two desk lamps, and three Bluetooth speakers from stalls. The students claimed they were under the impression that the items were abandoned there. Later, they returned those items and apologised in writing for the deed.

However, according to case papers, the institute imposed a fine and debarred all of the accused from appearing in three semesters. Upon challenging the decision, the director of the institution revoked the bar on appearing in semesters for three students; the fine was maintained for all five. This prompted the two, whose semester cancellation wasn’t taken back, to approach the court.

In its final hearing, after deferring the matter on two occasions, enabling the institute to reconsider the punishment, the court observed that the director of BITS-Pilani was irked that the students had dared to seek court intervention against his decision.

Notably, courts, on matters related to the internal affairs of educational institutions, adopt a slow approach to interfere, particularly on issues concerning disciplinary proceedings against students.

However, the Goa bench of the court said institutes cannot claim the immunity of slow interference in cases if they act contrary to its guidelines, ignore University Grants Commission directives, discriminate between two sets of students and “breach the principles of natural justice and fair play”.

On hearing the case, the court said in the order, “We are mindful that the two petitioners before us have to complete their education with the respondents for the next few years and not be scarred for life due to indiscretion or even indiscipline indulged by them on this one occasion.”

(With PTI inputs)