Delhi High Court Archives - DU Beat - Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper

DUB News

Ambedkar University, Delhi suspends 10 more students amidst a year of escalating unrest

By DU Beat October 16, 2026

Dr B.R. Ambedkar University, Delhi has suspended 10 students following an incident at its Kashmere Gate campus on October 13, the latest in a series of disciplinary actions since January that have drawn court intervention twice and continued student protests.

The roots of the ongoing developments at Ambedkar University, Delhi can be traced back to January, when an AISA-affiliated MA Global Studies student circulated an email criticising Vice-Chancellor Anu Singh Lather’s Republic Day speech. The university’s disciplinary committee found the student guilty of using “derogatory and disrespectful language” and issued a suspension order on 21 March, barring the student from campus for the 2025 winter semester. AISA called it political targeting and began protesting.

In early March, three more students from SFI were suspended after they issued a press statement linking a first-year student’s suicide attempt to bullying on campus. The university said the statement distorted facts and politicised a sensitive matter. SFI said the suspensions were an attempt to suppress dissent. AUD revoked those three suspensions in April after the Delhi High Court intervened, though students were directed not to participate in further protests related to the incident.

The protests did not stop. In the weeks that followed, the university banned demonstrations in its administrative area. SFI began an indefinite sit-in at the Kashmere Gate campus. During that protest, a student on hunger strike reportedly collapsed due to heat. Students also alleged that a university registrar attempted to drive through protesters, with one student’s neck reportedly coming within inches of the vehicle. The administration denied this, saying students had vandalised official vehicles and blocked university functioning.

On 13 October, another confrontation took place at the Kashmere Gate campus. The university reviewed CCTV footage and a preliminary report from the Proctorial Board and suspended 10 students, including elected student representatives, citing alleged indiscipline, property damage and a scuffle with security personnel. The suspended students have been barred from campus but can appear for assessments this semester. AISA said the suspension letters were served without prior show-cause notices.

The Delhi High Court had previously set aside a separate AUD student suspension in March, observing that peaceful dissent cannot be restricted simply because it conflicts with management’s views. Whether the October suspensions face a similar legal challenge is yet to be seen.

Image Credit: The Indian Express

Abhishek Goverdhan
[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB News

DU Faces Legal Scrutiny in High Court Following Its One-Year PG Programme

By DU Beat October 4, 2026

DU faces multiple written pleas against its newly introduced PG programme, and at the next hearing, it shall reveal necessary and developmental changes to the eligibility criteria.

Delhi University is celebrated as one of the most academically proficient educational institutions in this nation for both Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) courses. While the selection criteria for the regarded PG studies follow the same pattern as the UG, there is also a substantial addition to the parameters, notably for the one-year postgraduate programmes.

DU follows the P1, P2, P3 and P4 system, better known as Programme-Specific Eligibility (PSE) priority levels. P1 (Priority 1) candidates are given first preference because their undergraduate qualification has direct academic relevance to the Master’s programme. P2 (Priority 2) includes candidates with other eligible undergraduate backgrounds, such as certain BA programmes/related combinations, who satisfy the programme’s eligibility requirements but have a lower priority than P1 candidates. In practical terms, DU considers eligible P1 candidates first; P2 candidates are considered subsequently for the available seats. This addition has been introduced in the 2026–27 academic session, with admissions starting on 5 July 2026.

However, since its inception, it has received a significant amount of backlash over the selection criteria and eligibility standards. As a result, multiple petitions have been filed with the Delhi High Court, involving around 100 petitioners.

The first hearing was on 31st August, followed by 18th September for multiple pleas. The scrutinized changes have been provided to Delhi University for clarity of the case. Against the contested challenges, DU has failed to comply by filing no counter-reply yet.

The petitions in the case have scrutinized some crucial and cohesive structures of admissions. Part of the PSE programme has been requested to be rectified within the eligibility criteria. These include numerous changes, such as the inclusion of the Bulletin of Information, delayed notifications, and the merit-based system adopted by the University.

Let’s understand the severity of the written pleas by examining each petition separately.

Gaurav Sharma & Ors.—W.P.(C) 12558/2026 (31st Aug, 2026)

This plea was one of the principal foundations that challenged the framework for the newly introduced programme. Their central objection to the petitioners talks about the distinction and segregation that the university has created between two kinds of students who have completed four-year undergraduate degrees: students with a four-year undergraduate honours degree and students with a Four-Year Undergraduate Degree with a Major.

The main objection to this plea resides in the claim of being a uniform structure while simultaneously giving priority to students with a four-year honours degree over students with a four-year degree with a major. As an alternative, petitioners asked the Court to shift DU to conduct admissions without providing any unfair priority to Honours degree students over Major degree holders. Finally, a generalised solution was proposed so as to provide a common merit list. The list would include students of all categories while removing the programme-specific priorities and including more seats.

On 31 August 2026, Justice Jasmeet Singh issued notice on the petition. The information regarding this plea had previously been forwarded to the 18th August hearing. Following that, it was decided to provide DU the right to reply in this case, which has not been fulfilled as of 3rd October.

Shiva Singh — W.P.(C) 12521/2026

This plea was filed individually by a Political Science UG Student for his master’s degree under the new One-Year Programme. According to the University’s subsequent (Grievance Redressal Committee) GRC proceedings, Singh was a student who had completed his four-year undergraduate BA Programme in Economics and Political Science, with Political Science as his Major.

His plea basically meant that the University’s priority system could potentially put a student with an Honours degree in Political Science ahead of a student who had Political Science as a Major, irrespective of their relative marks in the CUET-PG.

The High Court therefore directed the DU’s GRC group to examine the issue and issue a reasoned order within the time as provided under the law.

The GRC subsequently issued a Speaking Order dated 3 September 2026.

According to what was reported in that speaking order, the University’s position was that both Honours and Major students were eligible; however, Honours students had greater subject-specific exposure, and therefore, giving them priority was academically justified.

The GRC also addressed whether students had adequate notice of the eligibility requirements. The Executive Council’s resolution was concerned with eligibility and seats. The reply came with the decision that the administrative changes had been uploaded on the DU website on January 2, 2026, six months prior to the university’s one-year PG admissions.

Therefore, rejecting this plea, the GRC agreed with the eligibility criteria approved by DU’s statutory bodies. It found that both students with a four-year Bachelor’s Honours degree with Research in Political Science and students with a four-year Bachelor’s degree with a Major in Political Science are eligible to apply for the one-year PG programme.

However, students who completed single-discipline undergraduate Honours programmes can reasonably be expected to have greater exposure to the relevant subject. The committee therefore concluded that the priority given to Honours students was a “well-thought-out, academically orientated decision” taken through a multi-stage statutory process involving the university’s departments, Academic Council and Executive Council.

The dispute is consequently about more than one student’s admission to MA Political Science. At its core lies the question of whether students who pursued a subject as a Major in a multidisciplinary four-year degree should compete on the same basis as students who completed Honours in that subject when applying for a one-year master’s programme. DU’s answer, through the GRC, is no. The university maintains that the difference in academic structure, entry requirements and subject-specific credits provides a rational basis for the priority.

Ankit Singh & Ors.—W.P.(C) 13299/2026 (10th Sept, 2026)

The petitioner’s application for the Masters’ Programme was rejected by DU on the basis of the guidelines set by the PSE criteria. In this situation, the major complaint was raised against the lack of properly structured nomenclature for some of these specialised undergraduate courses available for PG students. It challenges DU’s Bulletin because it bases admission on four-year undergraduate scores, all while giving priority to Honours students over Major students.

But in this plea, there is a generalised solution that is provided for a holistic and immediate remedy of inclusion. Such as a non-preferential list over a major or honours degree. And providing a common merit list. The petitioners have requested Respondent No. 2 to mandate DU to introduce respective One-Year Master’s programmes for specialised vocational and programme streams offered under UGCF-2022 as an alternate opportunity. The petition therefore connects the admission problem with the broader implementation of UGC guidelines.

At the onset of this case in September, Justice Jasmeet Singh issued a new notice stating that the DU’s counsel had to accept the notice and should be given time to file a reply/obtain instructions by 1st October 2026.

Ulfat — W.P.(C) 13498/2026

The Court considered Ulfat’s petition on 16 September 2026. The petitioners specifically asked the Delhi High Court to quash and set aside the GRC Speaking Order dated 3 September 2026. This Speaking Order arose from the earlier litigation concerning Shiva Singh, who stood up and filed a plea regarding the lack of seats being filled in the university due to the Honours degree preferential requisites. The GRC had been asked to examine the grievance concerning DU’s Honours priority and had ultimately maintained the University’s position.

The petitioners also seek to challenge the relevant provisions of DU’s 4 July 2026 Bulletin of Information. The delay in this notification led to broad mismanagement in the university’s diaspora. The petitioners believe that the students who had previously completed the degree before the new notifications have been primarily stripped of an official and proper chance to get their required master’s programme. Furthermore, the petitioners contend that this arrangement is prejudicial to students who have completed their undergraduate degree with a major in any subject.

Another important aspect of the petition is its emphasis on the fact that these are the first students graduating through the four-year UGCF system. Entering the new postgraduate framework based on the latest bulletin of information, the petitioners seek justified and appropriate clarifications from DU so that the first batch of students are not prejudiced. Secondarily, so that they have a bias based on the University’s implementation of the new system.

And, similar to the prospectus provided by the previous pleas, Ulfat’s petition also requests Delhi University to provide for a similar common merit list and to extend the number of seats to accommodate all types of students.

In response to this, Delhi University replied, as reflected in the GRC proceedings, that Honours and Major are not academically identical qualifications. DU’s justification is based primarily on subject-specific academic exposure.

The University’s position is that an Honours student has greater disciplinary depth in the relevant subject, which is particularly relevant for a compressed syllabus of a one-year Master’s programme. According to DU’s reasoning, giving Honours students priority is an academically noble criterion rather than an arbitrary or inflexible approach to preference. Students who have studied under the honours degree have a major first hand understanding and depth of the subject as compared to the students from the B.A. programme.

Therefore, the court has taken up this case again on 18th September, while directing the remaining procedural steps and holding off for a response by the university. The matter is currently being listed for the 4th October hearing.

Aryan Yadav & Ors.—W.P.(C) 13723/2026

This plea talks about a very significant and independent detail. The petitioners do not simply challenge the administration’s standards but directly question the University’s decision to organise admission through preferential categories instead of simply considering candidates through an undifferentiated merit process.

By challenging the preferential system, they ask to remove any kind of hegemony of courses and to provide a common traditional exam for all the UG students on a common pool of subjects. By this arrangement, the results of the common exam shall determine the academic cadre and then create a simple framework for students to take up the subject combinations according to their own comfort.

The petitioners recognize that simply striking down the priority system may not automatically solve the immediate problem. They therefore ask DU to develop a suitable transitory mechanism. Specifically, they ask for a supernumerary quota in a suitable proportion to accommodate the petitioners. The purpose is explicitly stated in the plea as ‘so that the present academic year of the students is not wasted’

Another particularly interesting addition to the case was to ask the DU Administration to establish a central online information portal that would provide students with timely information. This indicates that their grievance extends beyond the substantive priority of policy to the communication and information architecture surrounding the admissions process.

This case was listed before the Justice on 18th September, and the case summary was provided to DU, along with the necessary time to file a reply. The next hearing is set for the 3rd of October, while the petitioners await a much-expected grievance in the admission eligibility. The question before Delhi University is no longer merely who gets priority, but whether the transition to a new academic structure can be called equitable when they already face legal scrutiny with the inception of their first batch.

Image Credits: NDTV

Rajarshi Ghosh

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB News

DUSU Victory Processions Under Delhi HC Scrutiny As DU Asked to Respond

By DU Beat September 24, 2026

The Delhi High Court seeks DU’s response over alleged DUSU victory processions, reiterating concerns over electoral violations and the use of money and muscle power.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, September 23, sought a response from Delhi University over allegations that candidates who won the 2026 Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections took out victory processions despite a court order prohibiting such celebrations.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing an application filed by advocate Prashant Manchanda, who alleged that victorious candidates violated the court’s directions following the declaration of DUSU election results on September 19. The bench issued notice to the University and observed that the matter would be treated seriously.

The court noted that all 140 candidates who contested the elections, including those who emerged victorious, had already been issued show-cause notices pursuant to its earlier directions. Manchanda was directed to compile all relevant evidence and include it in a dossier to be submitted before the court.

The proceedings follow the High Court’s September 18 directions, issued amid concerns over alleged violations of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, the DUSU Code of Conduct and other election-related norms. The court had specifically directed that candidates, students, supporters or any other persons should not organise victory processions after the results, either on Delhi’s roads or within university campuses and hostels.

During Wednesday’s hearing, the counsel representing one of the candidates submitted that post-election celebrations could be difficult to control and pointed out that even dhols had not been used this year. The court responded that drums were not the central concern. Instead, it highlighted what it described as the “show of muscle and money power” as the larger issue.

At the same time, the bench acknowledged one improvement in this year’s election process, noting that there had been no reported defacement of public property during the DUSU polls. The court, however, remarked that “much needs to be done.”

The High Court’s intervention comes amid continuing judicial scrutiny of DUSU elections. Earlier, the court had warned that violations of election rules could invite contempt proceedings and had considered the possibility of imposing electoral damages on candidates and student organisations. It had also directed Delhi Police and DU authorities to ensure compliance with its orders.

The matter is now set to proceed on the basis of the evidence compiled by the petitioner and the response submitted by Delhi University.

Image Credit : Satakshi for DU Beat

Bishakha Gogoi

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

Delhi High Court Warns It May Halt DUSU Results Over Election Violence

By DU Beat September 17, 2026

The Delhi High Court has warned that it may stay the counting of votes and declaration of results for the DUSU elections if authorities fail to act on alleged violence during campaigning, and has sought status reports from Delhi University, Delhi Police and the Delhi government by Friday.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned that it could halt the counting of votes and the declaration of results in the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections if it remains unsatisfied with the action taken against those allegedly involved in violence and violations of election guidelines during campaigning.

A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing an application seeking strict enforcement of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, anti-defacement guidelines and the DUSU Code of Conduct, filed after reports of extensive vandalism on 16 September, the final day of campaigning. The plea alleges breaches of election rules restricting each candidate to four bona fide resident students, and seeks disqualification of candidates and supporters found responsible for violations.

The court observed, “Democracy cannot be converted into a criminal society,” while noting that the material placed before it depicted an “almost complete failure” on the part of the authorities to ensure the smooth conduct of the elections despite repeated past assurances.

The bench directed Delhi University, Delhi Police and the Delhi government to file detailed status reports on the incidents and the action taken by Friday, when the matter will next be heard. It also ordered a copy of its order sent to the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Delhi Chief Secretary and the Lieutenant Governor. The court clarified that polling scheduled for 18 September was not being stayed or postponed, though a harsher order remains possible depending on the reports submitted. Results are expected to be declared on 19 September.

Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Vidhi Ramchandani

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB News

Delhi University student petitions High Court for separate vegetarian mess facilities

By DU Beat May 8, 2026

A petition was filed before the High Court by a student frustrated with the lack of vegetarian-only food facilities. The issue has revived food-related debates among students.

A Delhi University student has filed a petition before the Delhi High Court asking for separate, vegetarian-only food facilities in hostel messes and college canteens across the university. The petition was filed on Wednesday and is likely to be up for hearing in the following days.

Vijeta, the petitioner, filed the plea through advocate Barun Kumar Sinha. She took the step after finding issues with her women’s hostel. In her petition, she stated that she was “directly and substantially” affected by the vegetarian and non-vegetarian food being prepared and served together in her hostel mess.

She went on to say that the lack of segregation had caused her “grave prejudice”, inconvenience, and violation of her rights. She also alleged that food safety regulations and hygiene standards are being broken regularly. According to Vijeta, no action was taken despite raising this issue multiple times with hostel staff and officials.

The petition seeks to direct authorities to set up separate vegetarian mess facilities at a reasonable distance from areas where non-vegetarian food is cooked and served. It also seeks proper segregation of veg and non-veg food in storage and serving areas across hostels and canteens, along with strict compliance with food safety and hygiene laws. The petitioner has further asked for a clear policy for students with strict vegetarian dietary requirements, an adjustment in mess charges for those using only vegetarian facilities, and a grievance redressal mechanism so students have a proper and timely way to raise complaints related to mess and canteen services.

Such issues are not new to the university. Food-related tensions have been faced commonly in the past few years. In January 2023, Hansraj College quietly stopped serving non-vegetarian food in its canteen and hostel after it resumed classes post-COVID. The decision came as a shock to many.

A second-year student at the time told news agency ANI,

“Earlier, non-veg food used to be served, but suddenly non-veg food and eggs were stopped. The students who have come from the south face a lot of issues because they have the habit of eating non-veg.”

In mid-2025, a similar controversy broke out at JNU’s Mahi-Mandavi hostel, where a “veg-only” notice appeared in the mess. The JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) reacted strongly, with president Nitesh Kumar calling it an attempt to divide students and a violation of hostel norms.

The current petition has also triggered mixed reactions on campus and on social media. Some students claim they feel genuinely uncomfortable when meat is cooked in shared kitchens. A student of Hansraj College had earlier told ANI, “People who want to eat non-veg can have it outside. Students are happy with vegetarian food.” The issue has also sparked significant online discourse. “If a student has raised it through the proper legal channel, the court should at least listen,” one DU student posted on Instagram.

The Delhi High Court is yet to take up the case for a formal hearing. No response has been given by Delhi University or the government so far. The petition is expected to come up before the court in the coming days.

Image source: Live Law

Arshia Sharma

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

From Lecture Halls to Delhi High Court: DU’s Bribery Scandal Ends in Justice

By DU Beat September 18, 2025

The Delhi High Court in a ruling upheld the termination of a faculty member accused of seeking bribes at Delhi University. Amid concerns for students’ welfare and academic fairness, the decision by Delhi High Court brings relief to many.

In an order passed on September 12, Justice Jasmeet Singh rejected the plea filed by Thelma J. Talloo, a former Reader in the Commerce Department at Jesus and Mary College (JMC), who had challenged a 2012 arbitral award delivered by the Appeals Committee of the DU regarding her termination.

The proceedings date back to 2008 when allegations surfaced that Dr. Talloo solicited cash, a cellphone, diamond earrings, and a saree from students for manipulating their academic records and attendance. The accused denied the charges, blaming personal vendetta and even questioned the authenticity of audio evidence presented by the students. She added that the students used to mock her during classes and when she reprimanded them, they accused her of bribery in exchange for academic favours to defame her. Additionally, she alleged that the college’s inquiry was biased and she was denied a fair defence and proper legal representation.

In response, the college and university formed an inquiry committee, followed by an appeals committee. Both committees, after conducting disciplinary proceedings, found her guilty of misconduct. However, while upholding the charges, the appeals committee reduced the penalty from dismissal to termination so she could still receive her retirement benefits.

Dr. Talloo challenged this decision through a petition in the Delhi High Court, contending procedural unfairness and disputing the incriminating evidence. However, Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed her plea, affirming that the demand for illegal gratification struck at the very core of academic ethics and integrity,

In view of the matter, the proceedings were fair, the findings are supported by evidence and the penalty has already been tempered by leniency. Hence, under Section 34 of the Act, no ground for setting aside or further modification of the award is made out by the petitioner.”

The court’s decision sends a stern message emphasizing zero tolerance towards corruption in educational institutions. It is now incumbent upon educators, administrators, and society to ensure that merit and honesty define the path for future generations.

Read Also: The Beats of DU-Special Buses

Image Source – India Legal

Arshia Sharma

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB News

Delhi High Court Directs Blocking of Sci-Hub and Libgen Amid Copyright Infringement Dispute

By DU Beat August 24, 2025

Delhi High Court ordered the immediate blocking of Sci-Hub and Libgen for copyright violations after publishers’ suit; the move faces backlash from researchers citing high subscription costs and restricted access to essential scholarly work.

The Delhi High Court, in its bench led by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, instructed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications to block access to shadow libraries Sci-Hub and Libgen within 24 hours. The order mandates a ban on these apps with immediate effect.

This comes as an outcome of a case in 2020 filed against these platforms by renowned publishing houses like Elsevier, Wiley Periodicals, and the American Chemical Society, which filed a suit alleging copyright infringement. They argued that the platforms gave access to copyrighted research papers without any prior approval.

After its initial proceedings, the Court prohibited the websites from uploading or sharing newly published works of the petitioners until further orders. Upon further investigation, it was observed that the articles published in 2022 were also later uploaded on Sci-Hub and another platform called Sci-Net, which violated the previous order.

The founder of Sci-Hub, Alexandra Elbakyan, based in Kazakhstan, responded to the alleged violation by stating that it was a ‘technical error’ and that Sci-Net was a separate entity from Sci-Hub, which means the nonapplicability of the order to it.

In February 2021, the Delhi Science Forum and the Society for Knowledge Commons intervened in the case, affirming that Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act allows “fair dealing” of copyrighted works for research, which they argue protects platforms like Sci-Hub from liability.

Image Credits: Live Law

Divyanshi Dusad

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

DU Weighs Changes to ₹1 Lakh Bond Rule Before Campus Polls

By DU Beat August 16, 2025

Delhi University (DU) is reconsidering its rule requiring candidates in the DU Students’ Union (DUSU) elections to submit a ₹1,00,000 bond. Introduced on August 8 as part of new poll guidelines to curb campus defacement ahead of the September elections, the rule forms part of a wider framework aligned with court orders and Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. These directives also mandate an anti-defacement affidavit, limit rallies and loudspeaker use, and impose penalties for violations. The bond requirement has drawn sharp criticism from student organisations, who say it imposes an unfair financial burden, especially on candidates from underprivileged backgrounds. A senior DU official told The Hindustan Times that the University is reviewing the provision in light of these objections.

According to the guidelines, “Each contesting candidate shall be required to execute a bond of Rs. 1.00 Lakh for the offence of any defacement/violation of provisions of these Guidelines by themselves or their supporters, at the time of filing nomination for any post of DUSU.”

Speaking to The Hindustan Times, Chief Election Officer Raj Kishore Sharma said that during a meeting with students and representatives of student organisations, participants expressed unwillingness to pay the bond. Following the discussion, the election office asked them to submit written representations to the university administration by August 16. The matter will be reviewed again before a final decision is taken.

The backdrop to these new regulations lies in the 2024 DUSU election, when widespread vandalism during campaigning led the Delhi High Court to intervene. As a result, vote counting was delayed by nearly two months, pending the removal of defaced property and its restoration.

Last week, university officials reaffirmed a zero-tolerance stance on defacement, limiting campaign materials to handmade posters, imposing expenditure limits, and promising to set up “walls of democracy” in colleges as approved spaces for election displays. They also agreed, following student suggestions, that these “walls” would be formally recommended for both college-level and university-wide elections.

Sharma further affirmed, “Following last year’s incidents, the university submitted a set of reform suggestions to the court aimed at preventing defacement this year, which included the ₹1,00,000 bond requirement. However, in view of the opposition from students, we have yet to take a final decision.”

The university has notified the schedule for this year’s elections—the DUSU elections will be held on September 18, with counting scheduled for September 19. The notification also sets September 10 as the deadline for filing nominations along with a ₹500 demand draft, affidavit, and ₹1 lakh bond, followed by scrutiny and the publication of nominated candidates the same day. The withdrawal deadline is September 11, after which the final list will be released. Voting will run from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. for day classes and 3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. for evening classes.

With the deadline for filing nominations less than a month away, the fate of the ₹1 lakh bond provision remains uncertain. Student bodies await the administration’s final decision, which could determine whether the upcoming polls proceed under the contentious rule or with revised guidelines. For now, preparations for the September 18 elections continue under the shadow of last year’s controversies and the university’s push for cleaner, regulation-bound campaigning.

Image Credits: Deepanshi for DU Beat

Neeraja Unnikrishnan
[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

Delhi High Court Grants Admission to 18 students at Delhi University’s St Stephens College under the Christian Quota

By DU Beat October 17, 2024

Amidst the hustle and excitement of the new academic year, St. Stephen’s College faced serious allegations of exceeding the limit set on admissions through the minority Christian quota. Two months later, the Delhi High Court ruled that admission should be granted to 18 out of 19 students, concluding that one student’s admission exceeded the five per cent limit.

St. Stephen’s College alleged in the Delhi High Court that Delhi University failed to confirm the admissions of 19 candidates under the Christian quota. The college had allocated seats to students by considering 13 specialisations under the larger Bachelor of Arts Program course as a single course. The college claims to have sent its list of selected Christian candidates on August 24th, 2024. However, the students still needed to receive fee payment links on their portals, implying that their admissions remained unconfirmed. Furthermore, the college mentioned that it operates under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right of minority communities to establish and manage educational institutions. The college argued that the university’s interference with its admission process violates the institution’s constitutionally enshrined right.

Delhi University countered by stating that St. Stephen’s College was misappropriating the minority quota. The University stated that despite operating under Article 30 guidelines, the college cannot surpass the five per cent limit set for admissions through the Christian quota.

The court found that in Hargun Singh Ahluwalia vs. v. Delhi University & Ors., it was held that the 13 subject combinations within the BA Program Course were distinct programs, having different seat matrices. Hence, the seat matrix provided by Delhi University is to be followed by all colleges without any deviation. St. Stephen’s decision to formulate a new matrix by treating all 13 subject combinations as a singular program, was thus, not in line with previous judgements. Justice Jaswant Sharma, thus ruled that,

“St. Stephen College, being an aided minority educational institute also, cannot claim to have absolute unbridled powers to exercise discretion against the policies framed by the University to which it is affiliated.”

The Court also found 14 students to be eligible as per the seat matrix. Four students were admitted by applying the five per cent excess allocation policy. One allocation was, however, found to be beyond the specified seat matrix, since the college had admitted six students in the BA Program (Economics + Political Science), while only five allocations were permitted within the seat matrix prescribed by the University.

Therefore, the judgement emphasises that although St. Stephens is a minority institution with a certain degree of autonomy, it must adhere to the regulatory framework set by Delhi University.

Featured Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Sakshi Singh

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

Delhi HC Orders Assessment of Facilities at DU Law Faculty

By DU Beat June 17, 2024

The Delhi High Court has taken significant steps to address concerns raised by law students regarding the inadequate availability of basic amenities and infrastructure at Delhi University’s Faculty of Law. The court has instructed DU to convene a meeting with all relevant stakeholders within a week to evaluate and improve the situation.

In a recent order, Justice Amit Sharma directed the university to hold a meeting involving key stakeholders, including the Dean of Students’ Welfare, the Dean of the Faculty of Law, the petitioners, and the amicus curiae, advocate Rajesh Mishra, who was appointed by the court. The focus of this meeting will be to assess the facilities, particularly the provision of water coolers, purified drinking water, and Wi-Fi services.

The petition was filed by three law students, Ronak Khatri, Umesh Kumar, and Ankur Singh Mavi, who cited severe deficiencies in the basic amenities on their campus. One of their primary concerns was the lack of air conditioning in classrooms, which makes the learning environment unbearable during Delhi’s extreme summer temperatures, which can reach up to 48 degrees Celsius. The students noted a stark contrast between the air-conditioned administrative offices and staff rooms and their own poorly ventilated classrooms.

Additionally, the petition highlighted that one of the campus buildings, constructed with tin roofs and asbestos-lined walls, exacerbates the heat issue, creating an uninhabitable learning environment. They reported instances of heat strokes and fainting, illustrating the dire need for improved infrastructure.

Moreover, the student petitioners argued that the inadequate infrastructure and lack of essential amenities constitute a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and, by extension, the right to education. They stressed that the current conditions pose significant safety risks and are not conducive to learning.

Justice Sharma’s bench issued notices to the Secretary of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and DU’s Dean of Students’ Welfare, seeking their responses to the petition. The court emphasized the necessity of a detailed assessment and required a report on the current status of facilities to be submitted before the next hearing on July 4, 2024.

The court also pointed out the importance of this meeting being well-coordinated by the respondents’ counsel to ensure a comprehensive evaluation and prompt improvement of the facilities.

While the respondents’ counsel informed the court that provisions for water coolers and drinking water are in place, the court’s directive underscores the need for a thorough review to confirm that these amenities meet the required standards and adequately serve the student population.

The forthcoming report from the stakeholders’ meeting will be critical in determining the actions DU will take to address these significant concerns and uphold the students’ rights.

Featured Image Credits: The Times of India

Kavya Vashisht

[email protected]

Keep Reading