INTRODUCTION
In this era of digital dependency across all spheres of life, smartphones and technology have become pervasive in all fields, regardless of their nature. Their usage in various forms is highly relevant, especially in the field of modern higher education, where reliance on academic research, completion of multiple assignments, studying for examinations, making study notes, leisure, and communication is crucial. However, access to such technology is hindered by code of conduct or rules laid down in student handbooks of educational institutions to ensure discipline, professionalism and institutional ethics, specifically during classroom lectures or examinations conducted in examination halls, where if the usage of smartphones is found, the lecturer or invigilator or examination disciplinary committee would confiscate our smartphones instantly. But we students in the course of the event worried and emotionally connected to the possession of our property, either due to the financial value or our habitual dependence on it. Leading students to questions like “How can they confiscate my phone?” or “By what authority are they authorised to do so?” However, we, as law students, need to ask, “Is my lecturer or invigilator legally sound in confiscating my phone, and are they complying with the relevant legal framework?” This question of legality is significant to law students, as it questions the stability between institutional discipline and property rights.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING CONFISCATION:
CONSTITUTIONL LAW:
Part-XII, Chapter-IV of The Constitution of India defines right to property as “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” [1] While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional right safeguarding individuals from whimsical deprivation. [2]
To students, smartphones are not just a means of habitual dependence but crucial personal property used for academics and communication. As a movable property, it is safeguarded under the umbrella of the Constitution of India.[3] This poses a notable question: “Can college staff legally confiscate them?”
In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [4], The Supreme Court of India upheld that ‘authority of law’ means valid legislation enacted by Parliament or State Legislature, not merely executive orders or administrative instructions. [5] Hence, if the university staff does not act under a specific regulation or law authorising confiscation, as a result taking away a student’s phone could amount to deprivation though it is temporary.
Even though the confiscation is done in the course of disciplinary requisites, it is necessary to comply with constitutional rights.
- TORT LAW:
In the Law of Torts, trespass is classified into two broad categories: trespass to the person and trespass to property. Trespass to property is further classified into two branches: trespass to land, which involves immovable property, and trespass to goods or chattels, which involves movable property. Trespass to goods can be defined as “it consists in direct physical interference with the goods which are in the plaintiff’s possession, without any lawful justification”.[6] Trespass to goods is Actionable per se, that is, without the proof of any damage. From the definition, we can derive three essential elements to constitute trespass to goods: it is a wrong against possession, it involves direct physical interference, and the said direct physical interference must be without lawful justification. The confiscation of phones by teachers is unlawful if it is done without any lawful justification, which only satisfies the first two elements. If it is done with lawful justification, then the college staff is not infringing the property rights.
Another related tort is Conversion which is also known as Trover, which is a wrongful act dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the property rights of an individual, thereby denying their title. In contrast to trespass, direct physical interference is not an essential element; it involves any act that seriously encroaches upon the owner’s right to use, possess, or dispose of the goods.
In Kirk v. Gregory [7], A’s sister-in-law moved some jewellery after his death to another room under the erroneous presumption that it was safer there. The jewellery was subsequently stolen, and she was held liable for conversion. Even though the intent was good, the dealing of goods was unauthorised, leading to conversion eventually.
The student’s phone is confiscated by staff without appropriate authority, which could be treated as conversion, because it disables them from enjoying their property rights. It can only be treated as an exception if the college has clear rules allowing confiscation and students have given their assent to the rules; if all these conditions are met, then the confiscation is justified. Even then, staff need to act fairly and not abuse this power.
- DISCIPLINE, CONTRACTS AND EDUCATION LAW:
- CONTRACT LAW:
During admission processes in educational institutions, an express contract is formed between the institute and students via admission forms, undertakings, and rule acknowledgements, to which students are required to give their assent to be eligible for admission; otherwise, their admission would be cancelled. For which, students agree to follow college rules in exchange for education and other services. Besides, there is an implied contract as well, which recognises the shared obligations even if not specified.[8]
Under Contract Law, admission fees paid to the college is treated as a valid consideration for coaching, infrastructural facilities, and administrative services provided.[9] Implied terms emerge from the type of the relationship, custom or necessity, assuring equitable and reasonable treatment.[10]
Colleges are authorised to formulate rules like prohibiting the usage of phones, but they must use this power fairly and not abuse it. Confiscation during class is justified, but being in possession for a long time without any justification is unfair.
- UGC REGULATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL CODES:
The University Grants Commission (UGC) regulates and maintains educational standards and universities across India under the authority of the University Grants Commission act, 1956.[11] The UGC issues guidelines like the Model Code of Conduct for Students on the basis of which the universities draft their own rules. The model does not specifically mention mobile phones, but most universities have rigid rules and regulations banning the use of phones during classes or exams to maintain discipline. For instance, at the Bangalore Institute of
Legal Studies, in their code of conduct, students are not allowed to use phones in classrooms, corridors, or the library. If this code is violated, it may lead to punishment or expulsion.[12] Further, state laws like the Karnataka State Universities Act 2000 authorise the university authority to take disciplinary action, suspension or rustication as applicable.[13] The Parliamentary laws and State Laws give backing for colleges to confiscate phones as a disciplinary measure but, the principle of proportionality and fairness should be considered to ensure the action is not excessive or arbitrary in nature.
- COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE:
In the United Kingdom, it is allowed for universities and schools to confiscate students’ phones if it is fair and legally sound. For instance, if a student is found using their phone during class and if it is against the university’s rules, the university can confiscate it. The Department for Education guidelines state that the staff should make sure that the confiscation is not excessive, and also they should consider whether to return the phone immediately or keep it in their custody for some time, subject to the situation and student welfare. [14] [15]
In the United States of America, the approach to student rights is rigid. Universities are compelled to follow due process, which means they cannot confiscate property without appropriate procedures. For instance, the University of California rules state that before punishing a student in any manner, they must issue a written notice, hold a hearing, maintain records, deliver a reasoned decision, and allow the student to appeal if he/she disagrees. [16]
Likewise, Harvard University’s student handbook states a similar procedure before commencing disciplinary decisions. [17]
CONCLUSION:
Taking the above analysis into account, it is clear that the educational institutions are authorised to confiscate students’ phones if it violates their organizational rules and the confiscation should be proportionate and fair, the institutional rules should be formulated in a way that it does not violate any Parliamentary and State Laws or any public policy, further it should not infringe constitutional and individual rights guaranteed towards possession or enjoyment of the property. In the lack of such rules the confiscation tends to be inequitable.
As a result, it is necessary for the University Grants Commission and universities to issue clear and detailed guidelines specifying when and how confiscation is permitted, assuring clarity, stability, and compliance with the laws of the land.
In the end, balance between discipline, academic integrity and respect for students’ dignity and their legal rights is necessary for responsible, unbiased and encouraging learning exposure in higher education institutions.
Author(s) Name: Parinith L (KLE Law College, Bengaluru)
References:
[1] Constitution of India, Art 300A
[2] Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act 1978
[3] Constitution of India, Art 300A
[4] Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v State of Gujarat [1995] Supp (1) SCC 596, [1995] AIR SC 142
[5] Ibid
[6] Dr R.K. Bangia, The Law of Torts (Dr Narender Kumar, Twenty-Sixth edition, Allahabad Law Agency 2021) 366
[7] Kirk v Gregory [1876] 1 Ex D 55
[8] The Indian Contract Act 1872, s 9
[9] The Indian Contract Act 1872, s 2(d)
[10] Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief (Rajesh Kapoor, Thirteenth Edition, EBC 2022) 9-11
[11] The University Grants Commission Act 1956, ss 12-14, 26
[12] Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies, ‘Code of Conduct’ < https://bils.ac.in/disciplinary-rules/ > accessed 20 July 2025
[13] Karnataka State Universities Act 2000, s 77
[14] Department for Education, ‘Searching, Screening and Confiscation: Advice for Schools’ (UK Department for Education, July 2022) < https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1091132/Searching__Screening_and_Confiscation_guidance_July_2022.pdf > accessed 19 July 2025
[15] Department for Education, ‘Mobile Phones in Schools: Guidance’ (UK Department for Education, February 2024) < https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65cf5f2a4239310011b7b916/Mobile_phones_in_schools_guidance.pdf > accessed 19 July 2025
[16] University of California, ‘Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students: PACAOS 103.11 Procedural Due Process’ (UCOP, 2019) < https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2710530/PACAOS-100 > accessed 19 July 2025
[17] Harvard College, ‘Student Handbook 2024-2025’ (Harvard University, May 2025) < https://prod-collegestudenthandbook.drupalsites.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum5551/files/2025-05/harvard_college_student_handbook.pdf > accessed 19 July 2025
