The Bombay High Court has said students protesting alleged irregularities in Maharashtra Public Service Commission examinations have a right to raise genuine concerns, while making clear that demonstrations cannot block public roads in Pune.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna made the oral observations while hearing a petition seeking a designated space for protests and legal action against demonstrations at SM Joshi Bridge, Alka Talkies Chowk and Ahilya Study Centre. The protests have continued for about a week amid student allegations of malpractice in the MPSC recruitment process.
“They are students, not anti-nationals,” the bench observed, according to the submissions recorded during the hearing. The court said students work hard to appear for public service examinations and should be heard if they believe there has been wrongdoing. It also noted that Pune is an educational hub and that students would not ordinarily take to the streets unless their grievances were serious.
The immediate dispute followed an MPSC examination for the Drug Controller post after the question paper was allegedly found online three days before the examination. Students have argued that filing police cases is not sufficient and have demanded accountability, including the resignation of MPSC chairperson Vivek Bhimanwa.
The State Advocate General, Milind Sathe, told the court that the Maharashtra government had met on September 30 and accepted three of the students’ four principal demands. These include two major recruitment drives for 70,000 posts, reducing examination fees to Rs 100, as in Rajasthan, and conducting examinations offline. The demand for the MPSC chairperson’s resignation cannot be granted directly by the State under the law, the Advocate General said. The government has written to the Governor regarding complaints against the chairperson, while a committee has also been appointed to examine the functioning of the MPSC.
The court was told that one group of students had withdrawn its protest. For the other groups, the bench said they could seek permission for a different venue, which the State could consider. The Advocate General said that protesters had initially agreed to withdraw after the government meeting, but continued their demonstrations, and that no current permission existed for the protests. The students’ lawyer, however, said police had allowed demonstrations at a particular location after the Ganesh festival on October 2.
The court directed the State to respond within three weeks on the steps taken to address the students’ concerns. The reply is also expected to provide department-wise vacancy details. The bench said the State must ensure fairness in public recruitment examinations and cautioned that prolonged protests could affect the students’ own career paths.
The court also expressed concern about Pune’s reputation as an education centre and the apprehension that unrest could create among parents who send their children to the city. It asked the State to examine genuine demands while ensuring that public roads remain accessible and that any future demonstrations take place at authorised locations.
