Amid student’s mental health struggles, Madras High Court tells college to return certificates, backs Rs 10 lakh bond

Withholding documents

• It is to be noted that even the University Grants Commission (UGC), while framing the UGC (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2018, had included withholding of documents within the definition of the term ‘grievances’.
• The main issue in the case was whether the petitioner would be entitled to the return of the original certificates without payment of the bond amount.
• The high court noted that the bond clause had been upheld as valid by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the amount remains payable by the petitioner and can be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
• However, considering the extreme circumstances of the case, the court held that the petitioner should be encouraged and aided to make use of his education, which should always come to his rescue.

• The petitioner’s request to declare the relevant clause in the agreement bond of September 2023 as illegal was rejected.
• The college authorities will be entitled to recover the amount of Rs 10 lakh from the student as if there were arrears of land revenue.
• However, the certificates and documents of the petitioner should be returned within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
• All the connected miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed with no cost to the parties.

Mental pressure, change in course

• The petitioner, upon completing Class 12 and scoring 409 marks in the NEET examination, secured admission at JKKN Dental College and Hospital for the academic year 2023-2024.
• It was placed on record that he had attempted to kill himself in August 2024.
• He had to spend over Rs 6 lakh for protracted treatment, and afterwards, he rejoined the said college.
• However, he was again unable to cope with the academic pressure, and the petitioner attempted to take the extreme step again and was rescued by classmates.
• Subsequently, the petitioner discontinued the course and enrolled in a BTech engineering course at another institution.
• When the other institution demanded the production of original documents, the petitioner approached the said college, which refused to hand over the documents.
• Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved the high court.

Submission by parties

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate B N Sinega argued only for the return of the certificates from the said college.
• Sinega further highlighted the extreme circumstances where the petitioner was initially helped by his grandmother and, due to depression and medical expenses, the petitioner had to undergo treatment.
• On the contrary, representing the college, advocate N Manokaran cited another case of this high court, arguing that the original certificates can be returned to the petitioner only if he pays the bond amount.