Start with the power of SC to test the validity of policy decisions of the Executive which

infringe the Constitutional Rights of students.

1. Plessy v Ferguson (1896)-

Plessyv. Fergusonis a legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court put forward the
controversial “separate but equal” doctrine, according to which laws mandating racial
segregation (generally of African Americans and whites) in public accommodations
(e.g., inns and public conveyances) were constitutional provided that the separate
facilities for each race were equal. It established the constitutionality of laws
mandating separate but equal public accommodations for African Americans and
whites. The U.S. Supreme Court’s majority held that such laws neither imposed a
“badge of servitude” (in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery)
nor infringed on the legal equality of blacks (in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection of the laws), because the accommodations
were supposedly equal and separateness did not imply legal inferiority.

2. Cummins v Richmond County Board of Education (1899)-

The decision of the Georgia County Board to discontinue high-school education for
60 African- Americans in order to provide elementary education to 300 African
American students. The displaced students were afforded nearby private schools as an
alternative. The court concluded its analysis by deferring to the power of the states to
determine who should be educated in the schools provided that the benefits of
taxation are shared by all without any discrimination. Absent a clear violation of
rights, the court did not think that federal authorities had the authority to interfere in
the operation of the schools. The ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court was thus
upheld. According to Cumming, any interference on the part of the federal judiciary
with the management of the schools could not be justified “except in the case of a
clear and unmistakable disregard of rights secured by the supreme law of the land.
The court sanctioned de jure racial segregation in American schools.In 1954, the U.S.
Supreme Court overturned Cumming with its decision in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka. J Harlan- Education is only a civil right which is not protected
by the equal protection clause.

3. Gong Lum v. Rice (1927)-

 A case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 21, 1927, ruled (9–0) that a
Mississippi school board had not violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal
protection clause when it classified a student of Chinese descent as “colored” and
barred her from attending a white high school. The Supreme Court next addressed
whether Martha had been denied equal protection when educational officials
classified her among the “colored” races and “furnished facilities for education equal
to that offered to all,” no matter what “color.” The court pointed out that since that
was not a new question, it did not call for a full argument. Instead, it cited a long list
of cases, notably Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld the “separate but equal”
doctrine in public education. According to the court, the classification of students on
the basis of race to receive the benefit of education is within the constitutional power
of the state legislature of Mississippi; still further, the U.S. Constitution protected that
action from the intervention of the federal judiciary.

4. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)-

A case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 14, 1943, that compelling
children in public schools to salute the U.S. flag was an unconstitutional violation of
their freedom of speech and religion. On the heels of Minersville School District
(Pennsylvania) v. Gobitis (1940), in which the Supreme Court upheld (8–1) the school
district’s expulsion of two students for refusing to salute the flag on the basis of
religious grounds (the children were Jehovah’s Witnesses), West Virginia enacted a
rule in 1942 that required students to salute the U.S. flag. In a 6–3 decision the court
overturned the Gobitis ruling. The majority opinion was written by Justice Robert H.
Jackson. While the earlier decision had focused primarily on claims of freedom of
religion protections in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, the Barnette ruling
invoked both freedom of religion and an individual’s freedom of speech—and that
freedom of speech included the right not to be forced to speak against one’s will.
Jackson’s opinion underscored the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the
majority:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high
or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or
other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
 And, attempting to capture the essence of the Bill of Rights protections, Jackson
wrote:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s
right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and
assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on
the outcome of no elections.

5. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)-

A case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established (7–2) the free speech and
political rights of students in school settings. On the basis of the majority decision in
Tinker v. Des Moines, school officials who wish to regulate student expression must
be able to demonstrate that student expressive activities would result in material and
substantial interference with the operations of the school or invade the rights of
others. When school officials have specific facts that reasonably support predictions
of disruption, they can regulate student expression, including banning specified
activities. Under U.S. law, schools are considered limited public spaces. As such,
students have fewer free-speech rights in schools than they do on public streets. In
schools, student free-speech rights must be balanced against the obligation of school
officials to protect student safety and privacy and to deliver a quality education. In
general, student free-speech rights extend only to expressions of a political, economic,
or social nature that are not part of a school program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFTp5MskIU0
1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI- This leads us to a discussion of what is the content of the
expression "freedom of speech and expression". There are three concepts which
are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights.
The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere
discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the
heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the
level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in.[3] It is at this stage that a law may
be made curtailing the speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to
cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty &
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States,
etc. Why it is important to have these three concepts in mind is because most of
the arguments of both petitioners and respondents tended to veer around the
expression "public order".
It is at this point that a word needs to be said about the use of American judgments
in the context of Article 19(1)(a). In virtually every significant judgment of this
Court, reference has been made to judgments from across the Atlantic. Is it safe to
do so?
15. It is significant to notice first the differences between the US First
Amendment and Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2). The first important
difference is the absoluteness of the U.S. first Amendment - Congress shall make
no law which abridges the freedom of speech. Second, whereas the U.S. First
Amendment speaks of freedom of speech and of the press, without any reference
to "expression", Article 19(1)(a) speaks of freedom of speech and expression
without any reference to "the press". Third, under the US Constitution, speech
may be abridged, whereas under our Constitution, reasonable restrictions may be
imposed. Fourth, under our Constitution such restrictions have to be in the interest
of eight designated subject matters - that is any law seeking to impose a restriction
on the freedom of speech can only pass muster if it is proximately related to any
of the eight subject matters set out in Article 19(2).

2. Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980): In this case, the Supreme Court
upheld the right of university students to express their opinions and criticize
university policies as long as it was done in a peaceful and non-violent manner.
 3. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004): This case revolved around
the suspension of a student for publishing a critical article about the management
of his college in a local newspaper. The Supreme Court held that students have the
right to express their opinions, and their academic rights cannot be curtailed
without valid reasons.

4. Pondicherry University Students' Union v. Union of India (2007): This case dealt
with the issue of freedom of expression and the right to protest by university
students. The Supreme Court upheld the right of students to hold peaceful protests
on campus.

5. Amir Sayeed v. State of Maharashtra (2012): The case involved the arrest of a
cartoonist for allegedly posting offensive content against political leaders on a
social media platform. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of
safeguarding freedom of speech and expression, especially in the context of
artistic expression.

6. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): Although not directly related to
students, this case is significant for its interpretation of the limits of free speech.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A (sedition)
of the Indian Penal Code while also setting certain restrictions on its application.

7. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): While not specifically about students,

this case laid down the principle that the right to freedom of expression can only
be restricted on grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution and
that the restrictions must be reasonable and in the interest of the public.

Know Your Rights | Students’ Rights | ACLU

Teens' Rights in School (linkedin.com)

Legal Rights of Student in India: Rights and Laws Every Student Should Know
(shiksha.com) Internet Free Expression Alliance (ifea.net)
What Rights Do Students Have To Access Books? (bookriot.com)

Student Rights: A Reference Handbook - Patricia H. Hinchey - Google Books

Buy Right to Education in India: Resources, Institutions and Public Policy Book Online at
Low Prices in India | Right to Education in India: Resources, Institutions and Public Policy
Reviews & Ratings - Amazon.in