大法官釋字第684號解釋的由來，是因為有三位學生，分別受到學校的不當對待，而聲請解釋。對於大學生受學校進行記過、警告等處分，司法院大法官在第一三六九次會議作成大法官釋字第684號解釋認為，大學校方對於大學生進行記過、警告等處分，若侵害學生受教育權或其他基本權利，應允許權利受到侵害學生提起行政爭訟，而大法官釋字第382號解釋也應進行變更。但在此次釋字684號解釋中，大法官指出，參照憲法第16條規定，人民有請願、訴願及訴訟的權利。而人民在自身權利受到公權力侵害時，得循法定程序提起行政爭訟，以求權利獲得適當救濟，而此項救濟權利，不能只是因為身分的不同，則予以剝奪。因此，縱使大學校方為實現研究學術及培育人才之教育目的或維持學校秩序，對學生進行行政處分或其他公權力措施，只要是侵害了學生受教育權的權利或者其他基本權利，就算不是退學或者類似的處分，例如選課與系所規定不符遭強制退選、期末成績經評定為不合格而影響畢業、及校方否准其張貼助選海報等處分，仍應准許權利受侵害的學生提起行政爭訟。 然而，參照釋字第450號解釋，可知大學自治屬於憲法第11條講學自由的保障範圍，舉凡教學、學習自由有關的重要事項，均屬於大學自治的項目，因此，也有大法官認為，若是允許大學生對各種校方處分皆可提起行政爭訟，等於是將更多校園爭議案件都丟給行政法院處理，或許對於現在的校園霸凌問題能夠產生幫助，但是本文認為未明確訂定大學生「可提起救濟」權利的範圍，又未提供行政法院具體審查學校處分的依據，恐怕將來會造成國家司法資源的浪費。

This article introduces the “special power relation” concerning students, its evolution and the opinions of each grand justice on Grand Justice Interpretation No. 684, in hopes of contributing to future administrative operations at tertiary institutions in response to this constitutional interpretation. The Grand Justice Interpretation No. 684 originated from the case of three students who were mistreated by their institutions, resulting in their application for constitutional interpretation. In regards to university students receiving demerits, warnings and other punishments from their school, the justices of the Judicial Yuan indicated in Meeting No. 1369 with Grand Justice Interpretation No. 684, stating that if tertiary institutions sanction students with demerits, warnings and other punishments, and infringes the students’ right to education or other fundamental rights, the students whose rights were violated should be allowed to bring forward cases for administrative appeal and administrative litigation, indicating that the Grand Justice Interpretation No. 382 should also be adjusted. In Grand Justice Interpretation No. 684, the justices pointed out that in reference to Article 16 of the Constitution, the people have the right to petition, appeal and litigation. When the rights of the people are violated by public authority, they shall be able to follow legal procedures to bring about an administrative litigation case, in hopes of obtaining appropriate remedies to their rights, and this right to seek remedy cannot be deprived simply due to differences in status. Thus, even though universities sanction students with administrative action or other public power measures to fulfill academic research and nurture talent in order to achieve the goals of educational purpose or maintain school order, as long as it infringes the right to education or other fundamental rights of the student, even if it may not be expulsion or similar punishments, for example, the selection of courses did not conform with the department regulations and were forced to withdraw, after assessment final grades were deemed to have failed thus affecting graduation, as well as receiving sanctions for putting up campaign posters, these should still allow students whose rights were violated to bring about an administrative litigation case. However, referencing Grand Justice Interpretation No. 450, it has been stated that university autonomy is under the scope of Article 11 of the Constitution, protection of the freedom of lecture, whether it be teaching, freedom of learning and other relevant important issues, all belong under the category of university autonomy. Thus, some grand justices believe, if university students were allowed to bring administrative litigation cases against any campus sanctions, this will imply that more campus dispute cases will be handed to administrative courts to resolve. This may perhaps bring some help in light of campus bullying issues, however, this paper argues that without clearly defined scope of rights for which university students may bring forward cases to seek remedy, and with no provision of specified basis for the administrative court to bring forward action against the schools, this may result in a waste of national judicial resources.