The Kerala High Court verdict that struck down a couple of instructions from the girl's hostel rule book of the Sree Kerala Varma College said that every citizen has the right to have their own political views as part of the Freedom of Expression and no college can deny its students that. Though the petition was filed to fight against the hostel's set of rules that were curbing women's fundamental rights, the verdict speaks about a lot more. The 2017 petition was filed by Anjitha K Jose, who was a third-year undergraduate student at Sree Kerala Varma College in Thrissur district at that time. Anjitha, who is now a student of Pondicherry University, had moved the court stating that the college’s hostel rules were stifling her fundamental rights.
Instruction No 22 of the college's guideline states, "No member of the hostel shall take an active part in political meetings, processions or propaganda." Commenting on that Justice A Muhamed Mustaque ordered, "This instruction has nothing to do with any discipline in the hostel. It is the fundamental right of every citizen to have their own political views as part of the freedom of expression. Since it has no relation with the power conferred with the management, I find this instruction has to be struck down as violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners [sic]."
But the highlight of the judgement was Justice Mustaque's remark about gender equality. The judge said that a girl has equal freedom just like a boy. The judge was commenting on the hostel rulebook's Instruction No 25 which says that women hosteliers may be permitted to watch films or attend "other entertainments" only on the day notified by the warden. No boarder shall be permitted to go for the evening or the night show. "It appears that moral choice of the management is attempted to be imposed upon the Boarders. The moral paternalism is something to be frowned upon," he said. "There are no similar restrictions in the boy’s hostel. It is for the students to decide whether they should go for first or second show movies or not. This is an activity outside the hostel activity. The College can fix timing for return in the evening, but that timing should also be reasonably fixed," he added.
Excerpts from the verdict that every Indian student will love:
It is the fundamental right of every citizen to have its own political views as part of the freedom of expression. That can be only reasonably restricted for securing any objectives of the management of the hostel. Since it has no relation with power conferred with the management, I find this instruction has to be struck down as violative of fundamental rights
It appears that moral choice of the management is attempted to be imposed upon the Boarders. The moral paternalism is something to be frowned upon. A girl is having equal freedom similar to a boy. There are no similar restriction in the boy’s hostel. It is for the students to decide whether they should go for first or second show movies or not.
The petitioner is an adult. Her right to question cannot be compromised based on parental consent. Even if the parent had signed, instruction cannot be violative of fundamental rights.
The judgement also said that the respondent's counsel might argue that the hostel instructions were signed by the parents or guardians of the student but that argument won't hold. "The petitioner is an adult. Her right to question cannot be compromised based on paternal consent," it read.
The judgement also noted, "Students cannot dictate the management that decision shall be in a particular manner. The fundamental right of management to administer and manage cannot be overlooked while considering the issues." Justice Mustaque, before concluding the verdict, said that even though it was argued that 6.30 pm as the curfew time is harsh on the students it is for the Principal to decide the timings.
