Case Title: Tripurari Kumar Jha v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: LPA 703/2023
Dated On: Reserved on 03.05.2024, Pronounced on 31.05.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Bansal
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, a student in the LLB program at Delhi University, was detained due to insufficient attendance during the first term of the academic year. The University asserted that there was no provision for readmission if a student was detained for attendance issues in the first term. Delhi University maintained that the amendments made to Ordinance V, specifically Appendix II, in 2007, prohibited the readmission of students who failed to meet the attendance criteria in the first term. This stance was supported by a resolution passed by the University’s Academic Council on December 12, 2007. On July 12, 2012, an amendment to Ordinance IV introduced Article 5(b), which allowed for the readmission of students detained due to a shortage of attendance. This amendment came after the changes to Ordinance V and was argued to supersede it. The appellant argued that the readmission provision in Ordinance IV should prevail over the earlier amendments to Ordinance V. The appellant asserted that under Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV, the University had the power to readmit students, and this provision should apply to all disciplines, including professional courses like LLB. The University cited previous judgments to support its position that provisions in the Prospectus or Information Bulletin are binding on students. However, these cases dealt with different contexts and did not specifically address readmission due to attendance shortfalls. The Bar Council of India indicated that students could be readmitted if they failed to meet attendance requirements for genuine reasons. The BCI suggested that such students could be accommodated in the subsequent academic year within the sanctioned seats. The court analysed the hierarchical structure and powers conferred by the DU Act, highlighting that the Court is the supreme authority with the power to review acts of the Executive Council (EC) and the Academic Council (AC). The court found that the provision for readmission in Ordinance IV, added later, should prevail over the earlier amendments to Ordinance V. The court concluded that the University’s contention was flawed and that it indeed had the power to readmit students under Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV. The court emphasised the need for the University to exercise compassion and consideration for students facing genuine difficulties, aligning with the BCI’s perspective on maintaining educational standards while accommodating genuine cases.
ISSUES
- Whether the amendments to Ordinance V in 2007 restricting readmission were superseded by the later insertion of Article 5(b) in Ordinance IV in 2012.
- Whether the powers of university bodies like the EC, AC, and Court in matters of readmission were clearly defined under the Delhi University Act.
- Whether the university’s policies on readmission were in line with BCI recommendations, especially in accommodating students facing genuine difficulties.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Delhi University Act: The primary legislation governing the establishment, structure, and functioning of the University of Delhi.
- Statutes: Rules and regulations derived from the Delhi University Act, providing detailed provisions on various aspects of the university’s administration and operations.
- Ordinances: Specific regulations within the university’s framework, derived from the Delhi University Act and statutes, detailing procedures and criteria for matters such as admission, promotion, examination, and readmission.
- Bar Council of India (BCI) Guidelines: External standards and recommendations provided by the Bar Council of India, particularly relevant in matters concerning legal education, curriculum, and student welfare within the university’s law programs.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant argued that the power of readmission for students detained due to attendance issues is vested in the University under Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV. The amendments made to Ordinance V in 2007, which seemingly restricted readmission, were superseded by the subsequent insertion of Article 5(b) in Ordinance IV in 2012. The University’s contention that the provision for readmission in Ordinance IV was inapplicable to professional courses, such as LLB, is flawed. The University’s failure to exercise the power conferred upon it by Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV resulted in the erroneous denial of readmission to the appellant. These contentions formed the basis of the appellant’s argument challenging the University’s decision regarding student readmission.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent argued that the provision for readmission in Ordinance IV did not apply to professional courses like LLB. They contended that the amendments made to Ordinance V in 2007, which restricted readmission, were still applicable and had not been superseded by the insertion of Article 5(b) in Ordinance IV. The University maintained that the appellant’s admission was cancelled due to a shortfall in attendance, and they did not have the authority to grant readmission under the prevailing ordinances. Additionally, the University asserted that accommodating readmissions for students like the appellant would adversely affect available seats for fresh admissions, creating logistical challenges. These contentions formed the core of the respondent’s defence against the appellant’s claims regarding readmission.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court examined the provisions of Ordinance IV and Ordinance V to determine the university’s authority regarding readmission for students detained due to attendance issues. It concluded that the insertion of Article 5(b) in Ordinance IV in 2012 superseded the amendments made to Ordinance V in 2007, thereby conferring the power of readmission to the university.
The court clarified the authority of various university bodies, including the Executive Council (EC), the Academic Council (AC), and the Court, in matters related to readmission. It emphasised that the university had the power to grant readmission, particularly in cases where genuine reasons, such as illness, warranted leniency.
The court highlighted the importance of aligning university policies with the guidelines and recommendations of the Bar Council of India (BCI). It emphasised the need for compassion and understanding towards students facing genuine difficulties, as advised by the BCI.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of the appellant, allowing the appeal and directing the university to re-admit the appellant with suitable adjustments. The judgement underscored the university’s responsibility to consider genuine reasons for readmission and ensure alignment with BCI guidelines to maintain high standards in education.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
