JUDGMENT : Some voices are perhaps much ahead of our times. This has been so throughout the march of civilization and the evolution of mankind; and it is heartening that one such is impelled in these cases -filed by young ladies, who are independent thinking, with the ambition to make a career for themselves, without being subjected to any kind of patriarchism. 2. “There is no gate, no lock, no bolt, that you can set upon the freedom of mind of a girl”, said Virginia Woolf, the modernist english writer. 3. The petitioners are students studying in the Government Medical Colleges in Ernakulam, Calicut and Trissur; and they decry the alleged attempt of the management of Students Hostels to shackle them within its premises, after a certain time. They assert that they are women of the present century, capable of taking care of themselves, with capacity to make informed choices for their own; and hence without the requirement of being boxed down into the conventional parameters of patriarchal support systems, asserting that such have been thrown to the winds in all civilized countries already. 4. I have heard these matters in great detail because they are not adversarial in nature, but reflecting the manner in which the present-age generation thinks. 5. Suffice to say, petitioners have gone through certain life experiences, based on which, they have come to this Court asserting that they have been put to unreasonable and capricious restrictions – which their male counterparts are not subjected to – under the guise of protection. 6. Interestingly, the petitioners appear to have approached this Court at a time when the Principals of their Colleges gave them the impression that the timings of the Hostels were regulated as per the Government Order, bearing No.G.O.(Rt) No.539/2019/HED, dated 07.04.2019, which fixes a “curfew” on students going out of the Hostels or entering it, after 9.30 P.M. 7. The petitioners contend that this is unfortunate and uncharitable, since it presumes that they are incapable of fending for themselves after that time; and thus devoid of the right to choose for themselves, the manner in which they can access the campuses of the colleges in which the Hostels are situated. 8. The petitioners contend that this is unfortunate and uncharitable, since it presumes that they are incapable of fending for themselves after that time; and thus devoid of the right to choose for themselves, the manner in which they can access the campuses of the colleges in which the Hostels are situated. 8. The petitioners have also projected a case that the restrictions imposed as afore are in violation of the “2nd Ordinance of the Kerala University of Health Sciences – Recognition of Hostels” (hereinafter referred to as “KUHS Ordinance” for short), as also the “University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and redressel of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Education institutions) Regulations, 2015” (herein after referred to as “UGC Regulations against Sexual Harassment”), which specifically mandate that discriminatory rules for girls/women cannot be imposed, citing concern for their safety. 9. As an additional and corollary plea, the petitioners point out that the afore said “UGC Regulations”, as also the “UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institution Regulations, 2012)” (hereinafter referred to as “UGC Regulations of Equity” for short) have not yet been implemented in any of the Colleges, save a few; and that this is required to be done, particularly because the former among them also mandate the Constitution of Internal Complains Committees (ICC), in cases of allegations of sexual harassment against women. 10. Sri.Harish Vasudevan – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.39074/2022 and 38482/2022, took me extensively through the “KUHS Ordinance”, to show me that Hostels of the Medical Colleges are managed by a “Hostel Management Committee” which takes care of general and routine requirements. He argued that, going by Clause 37 thereof, there are specific infrastructural requirements including reading room/study room; recreation room/TV room; facilities for indoor/outdoor games; as also a sick room -to be mandately provided; but that in the absence of these, the students are left without any alternative -when they are even refused access to the campus after 9.30 P.M -to visit the common reading rooms, recreation rooms, library facilities and such other. 11. Sri.Harish Vasudevan further argued that, as per Chapter II of the “KUHS Ordinance”, timings have been fixed for various purposes in the Hostels, including for study; and it is stipulated therein that, after 11 P.M, if a student wants to engage in study, she will have to use the common reading room. 11. Sri.Harish Vasudevan further argued that, as per Chapter II of the “KUHS Ordinance”, timings have been fixed for various purposes in the Hostels, including for study; and it is stipulated therein that, after 11 P.M, if a student wants to engage in study, she will have to use the common reading room. He argued that in the absence of such, it is the constitutional and educational rights of the students which are being compromised, especially when any attempt by them to foray into the campus, after the afore deadline, is viewed very suspiciously. 12. Sri.Harish Vasudevan contented that, therefore, this acute form of patriarchism being imposed in the Hostels, his clients are left without any other option, but to approach this Court, for enforcement of their liberties, as are unexpendable for the grooming of the human soul and for expressing themselves as students, to be practising doctors in future with the imperative requirement to mix with the Society, rather than being secluded, in the name of protection. 13. Sri.K.P.Sarath – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.39519/22 -who are students of Thrissur Medical College -adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Harish Vasudevan; to then add that the conventional notions of segregation of gender, even in public places, has to stop; and that only if the students are allowed to mix in the campus freely, can this long -ingrained notion of lack of safety for women be gotten over with. He argued that, there are several campuses in Kerala and outside, which impose no restriction on movement of girls within the campus during day or night; and that such campuses have recorded much lesser crimes and other deleterious tendencies, than which have been recorded in those which impose such. 14. Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University OF Health Sciences (KUHS), in response, vehemently argued that, what is germane for consideration in these writ petitions are not concepts of liberty of individuals, but the need for basic and essential regulation in the case of hostels – be that of men or women. 14. Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University OF Health Sciences (KUHS), in response, vehemently argued that, what is germane for consideration in these writ petitions are not concepts of liberty of individuals, but the need for basic and essential regulation in the case of hostels – be that of men or women. He argued that, hostels, by its very nature and implication, are not boarding places like hotels and such other, because the residents are all students, who are expected to give primacy to their educational endeavour; and therefore, that requirement for an outer time for them to enter the hostels, subject to requisite exemptions, can certainly be not found to be capricious or unconstitutional. He argued that, students are all young people of impressionable age; and that, therefore, the concerns of their parents, under whose care and guidance they are growing, also require to be addressed effectively. He then vehemently submitted that, even in the present day situation, parents would not like their children -be that boy or girl -to be able to wander in the nights, without purpose; and therefore, that, reasonable restrictions are necessary and unexpendable. He concluded saying that the KUHS, therefore, supports the order of the Government in this regard, since they are in consonance with the “KUHS Ordinance”. 15. Interestingly, Smt.Parvathy Menon -learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Women’s Commission, submitted that her client is viewing the prism of the controversy presented, only from the persepective of gender justice and equality; and that, since it is now luculent that the timings of Hostels for both boys and girls are the same, the directions of the Government cannot be seen to be vitiated on that ground. She added that, Government has, in fact, come out with a new order, pending this lis, exclusively for the Medical Colleges, in which even though there is an outer time fixed for the purpose of its closure, there is no “lockdown” as has been alleged, because the students can leave the College or enter it, provided they are able to show sufficient cause for it. She added that, since these restrictions are applicable to both genders, the Kerala Women’s Commission do not find the same to be in any manner objectionable. 16. She added that, since these restrictions are applicable to both genders, the Kerala Women’s Commission do not find the same to be in any manner objectionable. 16. Quad Hoc the plea of the petitioners for implementation of the “UGC Regulations against Sexual Harassment” in all Colleges and Hostels, Smt.Parvathy Menon submitted that the Kerala Women’s Commission find substantial and legitimate cause for them in seeking so, particularly relating to the constitution of Internal Complaints Committees; and, therefore, that they join with them in ensuring that said Regulations are implicitly implemented forthwith. 17. Sri.T.B.Hood – learned Special Government Pleader, began his submissions, saying that, the impression of the petitioners, when they approached this Court, are without factual edifice, because the Government Order, dated 07.04.2019, is not intended for Medical Colleges, but only for institutions under the Higher Education Department. He added that, taking note of the observations of this Court in various interim orders earlier issued, the Government, pending this lis, consulted the Principals of the Colleges, the Parent-Teacher Associations and Wardens/Faculty-in-charge of Hostels and have now come out with a new Government Order, bearing No. G.O(RT)No.2887/2022/H&FWD dated 06.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “New Government Order”). He pointed that, as per this order, the gates of the hostels – for both boys and girls – would be closed by 9.30 pm, but that any student can either enter or leave it, provided certain basic criteria and requisites are complied with. He showed me that, if a student is to enter the hostel after 9.30 PM, he/she has to only record the reasons in a Movement Register, which will be made accessible to the parents also, if they are so desirous. He then very pertinently added that, even though the “New Government Order” does not specify so, a student can, if he/she wants to leave the hostel after 9.30 PM into the campus, seek permission of the Warden/Faculty-in-charge and do so; while if a hostelite needs to leave the campus after 9.30 PM for events like a family function or personal activity, he/she only requires to make a written request for the same, preferably with the guardian’s permission. He, however, added that these relaxations will be available only to the hostelites in the second year onwards, because the first year students would not have been fully acclimatized to the campus and would have to be protected against vices like ragging and such other. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be closed in terms of the “New Government Order”. 18. As I have already said above, the petitioners are part of the new generation, who are justifiably restless and uneasy when any attempt of patriarchism is sought to be imposed against them. This is wholly appreciable, because, in the present day situation, there ought not to be any difference or discrimination solely on the ground of gender. 19. However, as I began this judgment, certain voices are ahead of the times, because genuine concerns arise as to whether our communities, as also the Cities and Towns are equipped to protect our citizens, in the manner as we would expect in an ideal scenario. 20. Going by the deliberations at the Bar and the pleadings on record, the answer is certainly to the negative with it being conceded that it is sometimes being risky for even men to foray into the nights. In fact, the “New Government Order” also proceeds on this basic precept of the vital necessity for a balance between the requirement of safety and the protection of individual liberties. 21. In an ideal society, girls and women must be able to walk on the streets at any point of time -be that day or night; but this will require our security and law and order systems to be as advanced as many others. Parents have a genuine fear for their wards and their concerns cannot be brushed aside, merely because the children have attained the age of eighteen. However, it is also apodictic that they must grow up, without being under the clock of patriarchism -even projected as an attempt to protect them; since, the modern day perceptions are vastly different from what it was even a few decades ago. 22. Our children have the right to experience life in all its vicissitudes and manifestations and cannot be locked up or secluded, even on the ground of offering them protection. 22. Our children have the right to experience life in all its vicissitudes and manifestations and cannot be locked up or secluded, even on the ground of offering them protection. It is the inviolable duty of the society to offer them security and protection; and to make our streets and public spaces safe -be that during day or night. 23. The petitioners have clearly approached this Court, because, somewhere along the line, the society has not yet been able to offer them such. 24. Since this is not an ideal world, surely, concerns of protection and requirements of security would certainly have to be given the attention which it requires; however, without boxing -in our girls, making them feel that they always require a man to protect them. They certainly have to be made ready for the world; and as the aphorism goes, “one may not be able to prepare the future for the youth, but we can prepare our youth for the future.” 25. In fact, when these matters were considered by this Court earlier, certain interim orders were issued with the afore perspective; the first of which, dated 29.11.2022, being as under: “The learned Government Pleader – Smt.Parvathy Kottol for respondents 1 to 3 , Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and Smt.Parvathy Menon – learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent, seek time to obtain instructions. 2. Prima facie, Ext.P2 appears to put restriction on the liability of students even to walk in the campus after a particular time. There can be justification for this only if compelling reasons are shown. 3. Going by the discussion that this Court had at the Bar today, it appears that one of the reasons for fixing this time frame is that students will find no reason to go outside after 9.30 PM, because the reading rooms and the libraries would have closed by them. 4. However, there can also be situations where students would want to walk out in the nights, for other reasons, as they may deem. This has been restricted through Ext.P2; and I am certain, therefore, that the competent Authorities must come out with the rationale in imposing the said limitation. 5. 4. However, there can also be situations where students would want to walk out in the nights, for other reasons, as they may deem. This has been restricted through Ext.P2; and I am certain, therefore, that the competent Authorities must come out with the rationale in imposing the said limitation. 5. When they do so, they will also keep in mind Exts.P4 and P5 Regulations of the University Grants Commission, which mandate that in the guise of protection, rights of the students – especially women -cannot be inhibited, particularly that of movement. 6. I am persuaded to make the afore observations also because, in the modern times, any patriarchism -even in the guise of offering protection based on gender -would have to be frowned upon because girls, as much as boys, are fully capable of taking care of themselves; and if not, it must be the endeavour of the State and the Public Authorities to make them so competent, rather than being locked in.” 26. In fact, the “New Government Order” is dated 06.12.2022, subsequent to the afore order; but the learned Special Government Pleader today says it was issued only on 07.12.2022 -he being thus unable to produce it on that day, when these cases were listed -which lead this Court to pass the following order: “Sri.T.B.Hood – learned Special Government Pleader, took up a preliminary objection that Ext.P2 order dated 07.04.2019, would not apply to Medical Colleges; adding that the Government intends to think over the whole issue and come out with a comprehensive order/proceedings. He sought a week's time for this purpose. 2. Smt.Parvathy Menon – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Women’s Commission, submitted that her client is not concerned as much as on the timing, but that it should be applied to all hostels -be that of men or women. In other words, she was on gender neutrality, when limits of timings in hostels are applied. 3. The petitioners, through their learned counsel – Sri.Harish Vasudevan and K.P. Sarath, argued that the restrictions in timings are anathema to the modern day ground realities, pointing out that, in the Medical Colleges, reading rooms and other facilities are open even after 9.30 P.M. 4. I cannot rush into any decision at this stage because, the concerns of parents and other stake holders are vital and requires to be properly assessed. I cannot rush into any decision at this stage because, the concerns of parents and other stake holders are vital and requires to be properly assessed. The Government, being a representative of all sections, certainly, must be given sufficient “play in the joints”, to decide the manner in which the matter will have to be viewed by them -which they alone can do at the first instance, since they have access to all inputs. 5. I say so because Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KUHS, also says that some timing is required for the hostels within the campus to maintain discipline. 6. Obviously, the Government and the other stake holders, including the University, must evaluate these aspects and inform this Court; and I make it clear that I am even open to counsel representing other sections to make submissions when the case is next listed. This is because, I do not treat this litigation to be adversarial, but one being pursued on the touchstone of next generation.” 27. When these matters were then called on 20.12.2022, this Court was told about the “New Government Order”, and I, therefore, indited the third interim order on that day as under: “As far as the Medical Colleges in Kerala are concerned, Government have now, pending this lis and stated to advert to the earlier interim orders, come out with a new Government Order, bearing number G.O.(Rt)No.2887/2022/H&FWD dated 06.12.2020, which relaxes the timings of the students hostels substantially. 2. As per this order, even though the gates of the hostels – both for boys and girls – are to close by 9.30 p.m, 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. 3. Smt.Parvathy Menon – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Women's Commission, submitted that her client also supports the afore Government Order, since it does not brook of any gender discrimination and makes certain rules applicable to all hostels to maintain discipline. 4. Prima facie, I find this order to be a welcome step forward; and am hence of the view that it should be implemented forthwith, subject to evaluation, whether further modifications to it is requisite, to be made by this Court in due course. 4. Prima facie, I find this order to be a welcome step forward; and am hence of the view that it should be implemented forthwith, subject to evaluation, whether further modifications to it is requisite, to be made by this Court in due course. Therefore, I direct all Principals and other concerned Authorities of the Medical Colleges to act in terms of the afore Government Order with immediate effect.” 28. When one examines the “New Government Order”, it stipulates as under: The translation of the afore is essential, to render it capable of access to all; and hence it is ut infra: “The time of reporting at the hostels at the night for U.G. Students including Medical and Dental is fixed as 9.30 p.m. This order is equally applicable for both boys and girls. However, applications were received from the students stating that there is discrimination in the returning time in hostels and hence time restriction need to be implemented regarding returning time. 2. Having considered the circumstances wherein some students report late in the hostel as they need to spend more time for observing patient care and management and to see and understand cases as part of medical education and also the opinions of P.T.A representatives of Medical Colleges and Principals, the following directions are made applicable to the hostels of the U.G students of Medical College. 1. The gates of hostels of students doing Medical and other U.G. courses (boys and girls) shall be closed at 9.30 p.m and the Security Guards at the gate shall maintain movement register. 2. The returning time in hostel at 9.30 p.m. is strictly applicable to the first year students. In this matter there shall not be any gender discrimination from the authority in theory and in practice. This restriction is considering their lack of acquaintance with the new place and also because they don't need to go to the hospital for study. 3. If at all there is a situation in which a first year student has to return to the hostel after 9.30 p.m., a note from the guardian shall be submitted to the Warden. If the student returns after the time specified in the note, he or she shall be let inside after making him or her sign in the movement register. The guardian may be informed if found necessary. 4. If the student returns after the time specified in the note, he or she shall be let inside after making him or her sign in the movement register. The guardian may be informed if found necessary. 4. From the second year onwards, students who wish to enter into the hostel after 9.30 p.m. shall show their ID Card to the Security at the gate and sign in the Movement Register recording the time. 5. Once a student has registered the details of his ID Card as well as his time of entry, neither Warden nor hostel officials should demand an explanation further. 6. Any guardian demanding to understand the entry times of their wards by perusing the Register should be given opportunity to do so. 7. The Warden and the Principal/College authorities shall ensure every week that the safety precautions around the hostels (street lights, camera in front of the hostel/CCTV etc.) are functional.” 29. It is indubitable from the “New Government Order” that it takes into account concerns of the parents, requirements of the students, as also the need for an unfettered life within and outside the campus. 30. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as I have recorded in the order dated 20.12.2022, is that there is no provision in the “New Government Order” for a student who has entered the hostel, to exit it after 9.30 PM. This has been, however, addressed by Sri.T.B.Hood – learned Special Government Pleader, who unequivocally submitted that, if a student requires to leave the hostel into the campus after 9.30PM, he/she can obtain permission from the Warden/Faculty-in-charge, citing the reason; and that for a “non-emergency purpose”, to go outside the campus, like a family event or a personal activity, the hostelites can either request in writing, or produce the guardian’s permission, which, subject to the satisfaction of the Warden/Faculty-in-charge, will be acceded to. 31. Therefore, the scenario may not be fully as the petitioners would perhaps require, but it is close to it. 32. Though there is a timing imposed on the hostels – for both boys and girls – the students can enter and leave it after it, subject to the conditions that are imposed in the “New Government Order”; and as stated above by the learned Special Government Pleader. 33. 32. Though there is a timing imposed on the hostels – for both boys and girls – the students can enter and leave it after it, subject to the conditions that are imposed in the “New Government Order”; and as stated above by the learned Special Government Pleader. 33. Though, ideally, one could aspire for a life in the campus without any restrictions, perhaps, our State is not yet ready for the same. 34. That said, viewed from the perspective of law, no rights are absolute – not even fundamental rights. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India provides for reasonable restrictions even with respect to such rights. 35. As argued by Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KUHS, basic discipline will have to be maintained in the students’ Hostels and these cannot be found to be intrusion into the personal liberty of our young men or women, as long as they are not capricious or intending to foster patriarchism. 36. There can be little doubt that any attempt to trammel a young woman’s choices under the guise of protection, will have to be frowned upon; but the question whether the Hostels are to be kept open unrestricted throughout night and day is one in the realm of policy, into which this Court cannot speak affirmatively -though, perhaps one to be thought of in future. 37. Suffice to say, going by the “New Government Order” and the modifications to it, as suggested by Sri.T.B.Hood -learned Special Government Pleader as afore, the situation faced by the petitioners, at the time when these writ petitions were filed, has undergone a paradigm change; and their capacity to access the campus after 9.30 PM has now become much more easier. Since the competence of this Court to travel further, particularly, within the constitutional perimeter, is limited, I choose to leave it there for the time being; but am certain that in better times, things will become much more relaxed. 38. Since the competence of this Court to travel further, particularly, within the constitutional perimeter, is limited, I choose to leave it there for the time being; but am certain that in better times, things will become much more relaxed. 38. In such circumstances, I dispose of these writ petitions, confirming the last interim order issued by this Court on 20.12.2022; but recording, in addition, the submissions made by Sri.T.B.Hood – learned Special Government Pleader, that if a student requires to leave the hostel after 9.30PM into the campus, he/she can obtain the permission of the Warden or Faculty-in-Charge; and further that, in order to leave the campus after 9.30 PM, for a family event or such other personal activities, the hostelites can do so, either on their written request or on a requisition of their guardian, which shall then be acted upon by the Warden or the Faculty-in-Charge appositely. 39. That being so said, as regards the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committees and the requirement of implementation of the “UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women, Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015”, as also the “UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012”, I am unequivocally certain that it has to be done by the competent Authorities in every college. Since the Kerala Women’s Commission also affirms that this is necessary -which is not opposed by the Government either -I am certain that this Court will be justified in issuing time bound directions for this purpose. 40. Therefore, adscititious to the above, I direct the competent Authorities of the Colleges and such other statutory officers, to ensure that Internal Complaints Committees, in terms of the “UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women, Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015” are constituted in every College; and that notifications to such effect are issued and published within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 41. As a corollary, I direct the Government to modify their “New Government Order”, including the suggestions afore made, so that it will partake the character of binding executive instructions also. This shall be done within two weeks from the receipt of this judgment. 42. 41. As a corollary, I direct the Government to modify their “New Government Order”, including the suggestions afore made, so that it will partake the character of binding executive instructions also. This shall be done within two weeks from the receipt of this judgment. 42. As far as the “UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012” is concerned, the guidelines therein shall also be implemented fully in all Colleges and this shall be ensured by the supervising authorities without fail. 43. As regards the facilities of the hostels, if any of the petitioners or any other student is to find them to be wanting or lacking in any manner, they will be at liberty to approach the Principal of the College and seek it; failing which, they can approach the competent Authority of the KUHS. 44. Finally, as to the “2nd Ordinance of the Kerala University of Health Sciences – Recognition of Hostels”, I record the submission of Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KUHS, that the timings therein are intended for reference and are directory -it being upto the Hostel Managements to adopt it, with or without appropriate modifications as may be necessary. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners can approach the Hostel Management Committees, if they require any modification, particularly with respect to their reading time, sleeping time and such other, which shall certainly be considered in its true perspective. 45. I part with the deepest commendation and appreciation for the petitioners for forcing a different view – rather than the inviterate -which is manifest from the fact that Government have also acceded to it substantially, through their new order. 46. But, we must bear in mind that it is not really about protecting women – they are strong. Its about changing how the world perceives that strength. There is no limit to what a woman can accomplish; and we need to change the dynamic, reshape the conversation – so that women’s voices are heard and heeded, not overlooked and ignored. It may have taken a while for this voice to develop; but now that it has, the new generation will not be silent – for sure! 47. In its essence, we need to reshape our perception of how we view ourselves. 48. Thus, what now is to be ensured its that the afore directions -being time bound -are scrupulously enforced. It may have taken a while for this voice to develop; but now that it has, the new generation will not be silent – for sure! 47. In its essence, we need to reshape our perception of how we view ourselves. 48. Thus, what now is to be ensured its that the afore directions -being time bound -are scrupulously enforced. I, therefore, find it necessary to list these matters again to ensure full compliance; and the Registry shall, therefore, place it before me on 31.01.2023. 49. I also leave liberty to the petitioners to seek any clarifications on the working of the afore directions by the next posting date, or even before, if so warranted.