The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that the indefinite expulsion of a student from the Maharashtra National Law University for “repeated” sexual harassment would result in his “academic death”, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by the final year law student of the university.

The student had moved the court against an order issued by the vice-chancellor of the Maharashtra National Law University on June 21, expelling him based on the findings of the institute’s Internal Complaints Committee.

He was accused of repeated sexual harassment by several girls at the university over two years, according to Live Law. Subsequently, the Internal Complaints Committee found him guilty in two inquiries, which led to the expulsion order against him, Bar and Bench reported.

On Thursday, the bench said that an expulsion order for “an indefinite and unspecified period would be harsh resulting in ‘academic death’ of ‘X’ [petitioner]”. It would also take away from the education and training that he had undergone since he was admitted to the course in 2019-’20, it added.

“The consequence of such expulsion would operate perpetually having a drastic effect on a student’s academic life,” the court said. “All this would also result in deprivation and denial of education…The consequences flowing from an order of expulsion for an indefinite and unspecified period are drastic and harsh.”

The bench upheld the expulsion for only one academic year as against the indefinite time period imposed by the university.

It also ordered the petitioner to do community service during the 2024-’25 academic year, adding that the university had to declare his results after its completion.

“This would result in ‘X’ suffering the punishment of expulsion for one academic year and also undertaking community services till the end of the current academic year,” it said. “Loss of an academic year in these facts would, in our view, be proportionate to the misconduct of ‘X’.”

The bench added that its approach should not be construed “as an outcome of an exercise in equity, but an exercise of applying the doctrine of proportionality considering the indefinite period of expulsion”.

In his petition, the student contended that he had an excellent academic record, Live Law reported. He claimed that the inquiry process against him was “flawed, biased and violated the principles of natural justice”.

The counsel for one of the complainants, however, said that the petitioner was a “repeat offender” and had “harassed multiple girls” in two years. The petitioner had faced an inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee on a complaint filed by a different girl in 2022, the counsel noted.