BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

WRIT PETITION

UNDER ART.226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

FAHEEMA SHIRIN RK.……………………………………………..…..

PETITIONER

Vs

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS……………………………………

RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

1. The writ petttion uonder artice 6 is maiontaionabce as fuondameontac rights

guaraonteed uonder Part III tif the Ctionsttuttion whereby aony iitieon iaon apprtiaih aony itimpeteont
High Ctiurt ftir eonftiriemeont tif his fuondameontac rights.The arbitrary, uoncawfuc aond
uonitionsttuttionac restriittions imptised tion the femace resideonts by the htistec authtirites,
speiifiaccy viticates Artices 14, 19(1)(a) aond 1 whiih prtivide rights tti equacity, ionftirmattion aond
perstionac ciberty, Thus the said Writ petttion is maiontaionabce beiause the fuondameontac rights
guaraonteed uonder PartIII tif the Ctionsttuttion has beeon vitiated.

. The imptisittion tif the restriittion tif usage tif mtibice phtiones duriong study htiurs amtiuonted tti
aon ionfriongemeont tif fuondameontac rights. The itiurt tipioned frstcy tion the beonefts tif tioncione cearoniong
aond mtibice phtiones faiicitatong the exihaonge tif ideas, grtiup disiussitions, dtiwonctiadiong tif data tir
e-btitiks as wecc partiipattion ion tioncione itiurses suih as the SWAYAM prtigram tif UGC, amtiong
tithers. The itiurt acsti stated as these studeonts are aducts they were iapabce tif takiong
resptionsibicity ftir their studies aond said that the studeonts shtiucd be acctiwed tti use their mtibice
phtiones “tti aiquire kontiwcedge frtim acc avaicabce stiuries” ion tirder tti “aihieve exiecceonie aond
eonhaonie the quacity aond staondard tif eduiattion.”

The Court highlighted the submission of the petitioner Shirin which looked to Resolution adopted by the
Human Rights Council on the role of freedom of opinion and expression in women’s empowerment. The
Court also emphasized the relevance of United Nations Resolution on “the promotion, protection and
enjoyment of human life on the internet” which emphasized that access to information on the Internet
promotes the right to education by facilitating vast opportunities for affordable and inclusive education. It
further called upon “States to promote digital literacy and to facilitate access to information on the
Internet, which can be an important role in facilitating the promotion of the right to education.”
Relying on Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors [AIR 1997 SC 3011], the Court used the judgment
that “the international conventions and norms are to be read into the fundamental rights guaranteed in the
Constitution of India in the absence of enacted domestic law occupying the fields when there is no
inconsistency between them” in the light of Articles 51© and 253 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the right to have access to Internet becomes the part of right to
education as well as right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
As mentioned by the respondent, it’s correct that the Principal of College has the prime authority in
controlling and regulating the functions of colleges including the staff, teachers, and students. The same
applies to Hostel authorities requiring to issue guidelines that do not cause any intrusion or disruption to
its functioning. But when such authority is given, it should also take into fact that an individual’s rights
are not violated upon such policies or rules. Thus, if one parent has compelled to restrict the use of
phones, they cannot impose the same on all students, causing unreasonable cutbacks that lead to invading
in one’s privacy as seen in this case.

Ion this iase, the right tti privaiy tif the petttioner as beiong viticated just the way ion the iase K. S
Puttaswamy- the tecephtione tappiong tif pticitiiaons aon ionseparabce part tif cife, perstionac ciberty, aond
digonity. Htiwever, here the ruce tif baononiong mtibice phtiones frtim 6 p. m tti 10 p. m aond abdiiatong the
phtione tti the wardeon tti maiontaion disiipcione, is uonreciabce. It’s itiontrived this ruce viticates the petttioners’
right tti privaiy aond afeitong her aond tither studeont’s futures whti are striviong tti buicd their iareer by
gaioniong kontiwcedge tti itimpete.

Thus the itiurt uption reviewiong the issue ontited that the right tti reaih the ionteronet is tione’s auttiontimy
aond viticatong it wtiucd ionfrionge tione’s fuondameontac right giveon uonder the Iondiaon Ctionsttuttion.

3. The enforcement of discipline by restricting the use of mobile phones would result in curtailing
the right of students to acquire knowledge by different means
In light of all the authorities cited, although it is significant that the principal of the college is the ultimate
authority to impose control, there can be no disagreement that students should comply with policies and
guidelines legally framed and that teachers are like adoptive families who are expected to care for, nurture
and direct students in their pursuit of knowledge to ensure educational excellence. In accordance with the
modernization of technology, the rules should be updated to allow students to gain information from all
relevant sources. It will be open to the hostel authorities to monitor and control when disruptions or
disturbances are caused by the use of cell phones by other students or to take action when any such
complaint is filed. Mostly during study hours, the absolute constraint on its use and the way to surrender
it is completely unjustified.With self-confidence and self-determination, it is for each of the students to
determine that she will not abuse it and that she would only use it to boost her standard of education.The
college is obliged to operate a hostel in compliance with the University Regulations and the UGC
Regulations to encourage students to reside near the college in order to allow them enough time to focus
on their studies. And hence, only certain rules and procedures for imposing discipline are required to be
followed by the hostel administrators. Discipline is not implemented by preventing the learners ways and
methods of gaining information and proper education.In this panorama, as per the decree passed, the
college must admit the petitioner back to the hostel without further slowdown
The propositions laid down in S. Rengarajan & Ors V P Jagjivan Ram,Anuj Garg v
Hostel Association of India- which implied that State authorities must reform with
changes, also, it should clinch children with modern technologies to face the
upcoming digitalized world.
It is necessary to uphold the quality of education given to women without any
gender bias and giving equal opportunity to all. Thus it upholds the right to equality
guaranteed in Article 14of the Indian Constitution
The judgement paves a way for promoting online learning as a vital part of one’s life, making the right to
ingress the internet in inference with the right to education.