JOIN USAbsolute freedom at 18 yrs inappropriate, not good for society: Kerala Health University tells High Court
To seek absolute freedom at the age of 18 "may not be appropriate and good for the society" according to the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS) which made this submission before the High Court here during hearing of a plea by female students of Kozhikode Medical College against movement restrictions on hostel inmates after 9.30 PM.
The university has also contended that sleepless nights and nightlife are not meant for the students.
At the same time, the Left government told the high court that it has issued an order on December 6 which relaxes hostel timings substantially and Justice Devan Ramachandran directed that the same be "implemented forthwith".
"As per the (new) order, even though the gates of the hostels –both for boys and girls – are to close by 9.30 PM, it gives sufficient leeway to the students to enter it after that time, subject to certain bare minimum conditions, except for the first year students, who are yet not used to the new environment and the locality," the court observed.
It also observed that prima facie the government order was "a welcome step forward".
"Therefore, I direct all Principals and other authorities concerned of the medical colleges to act in terms of the afore government order with immediate effect," Justice Ramachandran said.
The university, on the other hand, in its affidavit claimed that "age of maturity does not necessarily bring in brain maturation" and that there was scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that adolescent brain is "structurally and functionally vulnerable to environmental stresses, risky behaviour, drug addiction, impaired driving and unprotected sex."
"The development of the prefrontal cortex of the brain is very important for complex behavioral performance and the development and maturation of prefrontal cortex is fully accomplished at the age of 25 years.
"Considering the above scientific facts, seeking absolute freedom on attaining the age of 18 may not be appropriate and good for the society," the university claimed.
The university also argued that since the petitioners were medical students whose classes start at 8 AM, they require sufficient sleep after every day's work.
"Sleepless nights and nightlife are not meant for the students and it is the duty of the educational institution and the university to frame regulations contemplating sufficient rest to the students. The restrictions imposed are not absolute and the ordinance provides for the issuances of late passes from the concerned persons," it has said in the affidavit.
It was also of the view that discipline in a hostel was of primary importance and it was also necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the students living there and for that there are regulations in place.
Therefore, "opening up the gates of hostels without any regulation, would be detrimental to the society at large if the same is done without a proper scientific study", it has said in its affidavit.
The university also said in its affidavit that the age of adolescence was "too risky to be handled" and seeking absolute freedom, which the petitioners may not even get at their homes, was not justifiable.
It urged the court to strike a balance between the "necessity to ensure discipline in the hostel and the needs of the students".
Another argument made by the university was that unlike campuses of engineering colleges or management institutions, which could be properly secured, a medical college campus is always open to the public and thousands of persons visit it each day.
"It is also a fact that many medical college campuses have bus services plying through it with more than one bus stop in the campus. Public roads pass through campuses and the hostels could be secured and protected only by having compound walls around the hostel buildings," it has said in its affidavit.
Furthermore, neither the court nor the petitioners can shut their eyes to the crimes and nefarious activities in the society.
The university has also contended that the petitioner students were only a miniscule percentage of the total inmates and cannot be seen as a representation of the interests of all of them.
It has also argued that hostels would be failing in discharging their duties, if they fail to stick to the regulations which might have prompted parents to put up their wards there.
"In the regulations governing the hostel administration, there is no restriction which is unreasonable and gender discriminative. None of them violate any of the fundamental rights conferred on the petitioners as well. The norms fixed are necessary for the smooth administration of the hostels and to ensure discipline in the hostels.
"Above all this respondent (university) has not come across any instance where a complaint has been received to the effect that the regulations governing the hostels had put any student in a difficult situation so far as his or her studies are concerned." the varsity has said in the affidavit.
The petitioners have challenged a 2019 government order which restricted movement of hostel inmates of higher education institutions after 9.30 PM, saying it was only being implemented in their hostel and not that of the men's.
During the earlier hearings of the matter, the court had questioned why only women or girls need control and not boys or men and why a curfew of 9.30 PM has been fixed for women in hostels of the medical college.
It had also said, "Let us not fear the night. The freedom given to boys should be given to girls too."
The court had also said the State and public authorities must endeavour to make girls and women competent to take care of themselves rather than locking them in.