St. Stephen’s College, affiliated with Delhi University, reportedly took disciplinary action against more than 100 first-year students, as per a statement from a teacher on Tuesday. The alleged reason behind the suspension was cited as insufficient attendance at the morning assembly. After the suspension of 100 students, the college administration has asserted that they may face the consequence of being debarred from the upcoming semester two examinations as a punitive measure.
Members of the college community, including both teachers and students, have collectively communicated their concerns to Principal John Varghese, urging the prompt revocation of the suspension of 100 students. The request for immediate withdrawal underscores the shared sentiment among faculty and learners, emphasising the urgency of addressing the matter at hand. This unified appeal seeks a swift resolution and restoration of the affected individual’s standing within the college. The collaborative effort reflects a commitment to fostering a supportive and fair educational environment.
On February 4, the college administration sent out an email to all students, urging them to schedule appointments with the college principal. Importantly, the authorities requested the presence of parents during these meetings. Subsequently, on February 17, a follow-up email was dispatched to students, notifying them of the consequence for failing to arrange the stipulated appointments—a suspension of 100 students and debarment from participating in the semester two examinations.
In response to this development, both students and teachers took the initiative to reach out to Principal John Varghese. Their communications expressed concern over the severity of the penalty and implored for the immediate withdrawal of the order of suspension of 100 students.
To articulate their position more formally, the students collectively composed an email on a Sunday, addressing both Principal Varghese and the college authorities. In this communication, they emphasised the logistical challenges faced by students, as the parents of a majority reside outside of Delhi. They argued that the short notice provided for appointment scheduling made it an impractical and challenging task.
In their collective statement, students highlighted a significant challenge in setting appointments, particularly for those whose parents reside outside the Delhi NCR region. For many, the feasibility of scheduling appointments was compromised due to this geographical constraint.
Despite the hurdles, some students attempted to secure appointments unaccompanied by a guardian, only to face rejection. Additionally, there were instances where students received no response to their emails or electronic files pertaining to appointment requests.
The ramifications of the suspension of 100 students were not limited to logistical issues; they extended to academic concerns as well. Teachers, equally troubled by the situation, voiced their apprehensions about students potentially missing classes and examinations as a consequence of the enforced suspension of 100 students.
Associate Professor Sanjeev Grewal conveyed his astonishment to the principal, emphasising that the shortage of attendance at the morning assembly should not serve as grounds for barring students from participating in examinations. The expressed shock underscored the belief that such a punitive measure was disproportionate to the stated cause.
The assertion that mandating attendance at morning assemblies may potentially infringe upon students’ fundamental rights as outlined in Articles 25 and 28(3) of the Constitution, rendering such a requirement illegal, is a perspective articulated by Grewal. Grewal’s stance raises the argument that making morning assembly attendance compulsory could be seen as a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Specifically, Articles 25 and 28(3) are cited as the constitutional provisions that could be implicated in this context.
