The Bombay High Court has cancelled the compulsory retirement of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) professor Dr Swapan Gerain, ruling that creating a WhatsApp group without the institution’s permission could not by itself justify ending a distinguished academic career.
A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Sandeep Patil described the punishment imposed on Gerain as irrational and excessively harsh in relation to the alleged misconduct, according to the court order reported by Loksatta. The court also observed that the penalty was disproportionate to the conduct attributed to the professor.
Gerain had been accused of creating a WhatsApp group comprising TISS alumni without the institution’s permission. The institution’s allegation was that he used the group to conduct a business involving placement services. The court, however, noted that there was no evidence to establish that allegation.
According to the report, the WhatsApp group was used as a platform for sharing useful information among former students of the institution. The bench held that the absence of prior permission to create the group could not, on its own, provide sufficient justification for imposing such a severe punishment.
The court referred to a comment associated with English barrister and judge Lord Diplock: a hammer cannot be used to crack a walnut. The reference underscored the bench’s finding that the disciplinary response was excessive when compared with the conduct alleged against the professor.
The ruling also took into account Gerain’s long association with TISS. He had been working as a professor at the Mumbai-based institution since 1985 and was described by the court as a person of distinction. The bench allowed his petition and set aside the compulsory-retirement order.
The case places institutional disciplinary authority against the need for proportionate action in an era when professional and alumni communication increasingly takes place through private digital platforms. The court’s finding, as reported, was limited to the circumstances before it: the alleged unauthorised creation of the group and the absence of evidence supporting the claim that it was used for placement-services business.
The court’s order therefore provides relief to the professor while rejecting the institution’s decision to impose compulsory retirement on the basis described in the proceedings. The reported judgment does not establish a general exemption from institutional rules governing digital groups; it holds that the punishment in this case was not supported by adequate evidence or proportionality.
