How Kerala HC helped a college expel a student for falling in love

On July 15, 2016, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ms X (name withheld) against the Marthoma College of Science and Technology challenging her dismissal from the college.

The college had initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner and dismissed her on the ground that she had eloped with another student from the same class and the two of them were living together in a lodge.

According to the order of the high court, the college had constituted a five member committee which had conducted an inquiry and was of the opinion that the action of the petitioner was unprecedented and that if no action was taken, the discipline and image of the college would be affected.

It, therefore, recommended the expulsion of the petitioner, even though she had an excellent academic record and was in her fourth semester (out of a total of six).

Also read: Why the Indian woman is either a mother or a whore

The petitioner had, in her petition, stated that the only thing she could be accused of was "falling in love with a classmate" and that termination/expulsion on such a ground was not justified.

The issue at hand is whether the college can interfere in the private lives of two consenting adults and whether the decision of the college to expel the petitioner was legally justifiable.

Unfortunately, instead of discussing and analysing the merits of the case and the legal issue at hand, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition by way of a short order (all of seven pages) without even once referring to the specific rules or guidelines that had allegedly been violated by the petitioner.

The court held, "When taking such a drastic step for the sake of love, as adults, they should also be ready to face the consequences."

With due respect to the court, it must be said that its decision does not have any legal basis, rather it appears to be influenced by the moral beliefs and convictions of the judge.

This can be gauged from the fact that though the judge recognised that both parties were consenting adults and could definitely act according to their own volition, he believed, "This is not a mere case of falling in love; but two students taking the drastic step of eloping and living together without even contracting a marriage.

"As consenting adults, they could definitely act according to their volition. But here they could not have even legally entered into a marriage... The management's concern of setting an example to the other students and ensuring maintenance of discipline in the educational institution cannot be easily brushed aside."

According to the order of the court, the petitioner's expulsion was justified as she was living with her classmate even though she was not married to him.

The court appears to have conflated the legal and moral issues surrounding live-in relationships. A distinction has to be made between what is legal and what may be regarded as socially unacceptable; live-in relationships may not be the social norm, however, they are recognised under the law.

The legislature as well as the Supreme Court has accepted live-in relationships as a valid legal relationship which confers and guarantees certain rights and obligations on the parties.

The legislature has by virtue of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 extended the protection conferred under the Act to a relationship "in the nature of marriage".

In 2006, the Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral.

In 2013, a Supreme Court bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose had framed guidelines for bringing live-in relationships within the purview of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

In the same case, the Supreme Court held, "Live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, though socially unacceptable. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal."

In 2015, the Delhi High Court was of the view that like the extension of the Domestic Violence Act to women in live-in relationships, there was a need to extend the benefit of the rules/guidelines providing for extension of visa of foreigners married to an Indian national to foreigners who were not married, but were in a live-in relationship with an Indian national.

Live-in relationships are a reality which has been recognised by law. Any decision or order which prejudicially affects the right of the affected party has to be a reasoned order and should be based on legal justification.

It cannot be based on the court's subjective interpretation of morality and acceptable social norms.

However, unfortunately, in this case, the moral views and sensibilities of the judge appear to have been the basis for upholding the expulsion order.