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

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

DUB News

Delhi HC Slams DU for Arbitrary Admission Denial

By DU Beat October 20, 2023

The High Court (HC) ruled in favour of the petitioner and stated that the University could not unfairly reject admissions of deserving students because of the inconsistency in its own information bulletin.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court called out the University of Delhi for arbitrarily cancelling a student’s enrollment. The case goes back to the previous term, 2022–23, when a student was denied admission to Kirori Mal College (KMC) in the B.A. Hons Geography programme offered by Delhi University (DU) on the grounds of “non-fulfilment of subject mapping criteria.”

Since last year, admissions to many central universities, including Delhi University (DU), have taken place through the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) (UG)-2022. The eligibility criteria require passing class XII from a recognised board and adhering to programme-specific requirements. In this case, the petitioner opted for English, Hindi, Geography/Geology, History, and Political Science, deviating from specific subject requirements for B.A. (Hons.) Geography.

However, the CUET allowed for flexibility if an individual Central University permitted it and The petitioner argued that, in the absence of ‘English Literature’ as a CUET subject, he opted for ‘History,’ which he considered the closest match to his prior studies. According to Clause 4 of the University’s information bulletin, the student was offered this flexibility.

After the results were announced, the petitioner was allotted a seat in the B.A. Hons Geography programme at Kirori Mal College on October 19, 2022. The seat was accepted by the student, but the University later cancelled his admission, citing “non-fulfilment of subject mapping criteria.”. This lead to a legal dispute.

The University of Delhi challenged the petitioner’s eligibility based on the subjects chosen in CUET. This case was previously presented to a single judge bench presided over by Justice Vikas Mahajan, who held that the University of Delhi had arbitrarily and incorrectly cancelled the petitioner’s seat without any of the petitioner’s fault and violated the terms and conditions outlined in the Bulletin of Information. He also noted that the petitioner was a deserving and meritorious student who had made it to the merit list in the first round of admissions.

The University of Delhi was ordered to admit the petitioner into the B.A. (Hons.) Geography programme at the same institution in the academic year 2023-2024 due to the conclusion of the admission procedure for the previous year.

The single judge’s decision ordering the University to accept the student into the B.A. (Hons.) Geography programme for the academic year 2023–2024 was challenged by DU in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) and hence presented to the High Court.

Delhi University was represented by attorneys Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, and Sachpreet Kaur, while the respondent student was represented by advocates A. Velan, Navpreet Kaur, Nishant Bishnoi, and Mritunjay Pathak.

The appeal was to reverse the previous judgement because, as per the guidelines, the student was required to give the admission test again to get enrolled for the academic year 2023-2024. The appellant also argued that the ‘DU Exception’ did not apply in this case, and hence the judge cannot link ‘English Literature’ and ‘History’ as similar.

The key concerns of the court were to explore and understand the university guidelines and check whether ‘History’ could be replaced with ‘English literature’ or not. Secondly, the bench considered whether the student could actually be admitted to the term 2023–24 based on the previous judgement.

The court observed that although CUET required students to align with subjects that they took in class XIIth Examination, Clause 4 of the information bulletin permits the students to choose a subject that mirrors their preference in XIIth Board and resembles the programme they wish to pursue further, hence offering a deviation. In this situation, the student had rightly used ‘DU Exception’ with no fault of his own since the university had not released clearer instructions regarding the same. The whole injustice was caused by the ‘narrow interpretation’ of the guidelines.

The University’s denial of admission was hence unreasonable, according to the court, which also determined that the student had properly used the DU Exception. It brought to light the ambiguous criteria for using the DU Exception and the University’s constrained interpretation of its own guidelines.

Delhi University has failed to provide a cogent rationale regarding the perceived dissimilarity between ‘English Literature’ and ‘History’ and overlooked the very essence of the DU Exception. Notably, the University has neither delineated guidelines nor disseminated instructions that clarify the parameters of the DU Exception, such as defining the extent of “similarity” or “closeness” between subjects.

– Read the observations by the bench.

Regarding the second matter of reviewing the single judge’s decision to provide relief to the petitioner, the court referred to the judgement of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2020) 17 SCC 465. According to the guidelines of this landmark ruling, if a ‘meritorious’ student has been denied admission on arbitrary grounds or the breach of rules, affecting his or her rights, and has approached the court on time without any delay, he or she should be granted justice to not limit their academic journey. If he or she cannot be provided relief of admission in the present year, the court can direct such admission to the next academic year.

The bench thus favoured the student and mentioned,

The student cannot be held accountable for any delay or negligence. Being an exemplary candidate, he has been unfairly deprived of his admission due to the capricious and unwarranted decisions of the Appellant University.

The Court emphasised the importance of upholding the ideals of fairness, inclusion, and clarity in educational institutions, particularly those with the status of Delhi University. It criticised the absence of clear guidelines for applying the DU Exception, stating that this ambiguity not only leaves students in a state of uncertainty but also makes it difficult to foster clarity in rules and their uniform implementation.

Featured Image Credits: Google Images

Priya Agrawal
[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB News

Delhi HC Responds to Release 5th Semester Results

By DU Beat April 25, 2020

The Delhi High Court has finally sought the response of Delhi university, on a student’s plea to seek results of her Economics fifth semester results.

A final year student of Economics hons., Daulat Ram College, Delhi University was accused of cheating in one of her examinations, by carrying some notes in her pouch. The student claimed of appearing in all the examinations and in the ‘International Trade’ exam, held on 3rd December 2019, she got late due to traffic and mistakenly carried some notes in her pouch. She says of informing the invigilator when she realised, and was ready to surrender them, despite which she wasn’t allowed to continue with her exam. Till the time a fresh answer sheet arrived the time for the examination got over.

A show cause notice was issued to her, on 12th March and her entire examinations were cancelled. Agitated by this she filed a petition in court, seeking assessment and result of all the four examinations she appeared for. The student further claimed of making representations to the university but receiving no response in return. She said of getting no hearing before cancelation of her exams, the results of other students of the same course has already been declared. As per the invigilator’s allegation, the girl was indulged in cheating and hence was rightfully debarred.

The university council submitted of the woman not filing any reply to the show cause notice, or seeking a personal hearing. It further said of being under lockdown, hence needing more time for records retrieval, to file before the court. The court considering the woman to be a meritorious student, and admitting of her not receiving any hearing with respect to the show cause notice, declared to consider her request of revealing the results of her other three papers, in the next hearing on 11th May.

“Accordingly, at this stage, the respondent (DU) is permitted to file a counter affidavit along with the relevant documents within a period of two weeks. On the next date, the University of Delhi shall also place in a sealed cover before this court the result of the other three examinations where the petitioner (student) had appeared in her fifth semester,” said justice Pratibha M Singh.

Feature Image Credits: Jagran Josh

Kriti Gupta

[email protected]

Keep Reading

DUB Speak

Students of SOL to Give Combined Examinations

By Shivani Dadhwal November 28, 2019

Following a court notification, the officials declared SOL students to write combined first and second-semester examinations, in 2020.

On Monday, 25th November, officials announced that students of Delhi University, School of Open Learning (SOL) will be writing combined examinations for first and second semesters in May-June of 2020, following a notification from High Court (HC) ordered on 21^st November. This decision affects the 1.15 lakh students who were admitted to the University this year.

A group of students from SOL had submitted a plea with the Delhi High Court complaining about the unanticipated implementation of the semester-based choice-based credit system (CBCS). Until the previous academic year, the school conducted annual examinations, but with the sudden change on August 17, the students remained unprepared for the semester examinations that were to commence on 24th November.

Pleaders complained that the weekend classes did not begin before 22nd September and had been cancelled “at least three times”. The studying material provided was also “incomplete or illegible”. The Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS) has been in the forefront demanding for the semester system to be applied from the following year, so as to allow the students time to get acquainted with the system.

After the Court moved in favour of the students, the Vice Chancellor (VC) submitted a report providing two alternatives- either postpone the first semester to December or combine it with the second semester. The petitioners chose the latter.

The officials from SOL claimed that the students preferred the former choice. Ramesh Bhardwaj, Officer on Special Duty, SOL stated, “We had spoken to thousands of students, and they had said that they preferred the first option… However, we followed the court’s direction.”
A Delhi State Committee member of KYS had stated that the material provided was “so bad” that a month’s delay would not have been sufficient for the students to prepare themselves.

Featured Image Credits: DU Beat

Aditi Gutgutia

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Campus Central

Delhi High Court Directs CBSE and DU to be Considerate to Gender Change

By Anoushka Sharma February 24, 2019

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed CBSE and University of Delhi to arrange for a medium for transgenders to attain changes in name and gender, in educational records.

On Wednesday, 20th February 2019, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice VK Rao showcased its disapproval to the University of Delhi (DU) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in declining the change of name and gender for a transgender person. It stated that when the Supreme Court had recognised their gender identity, education bodies must rise to the occasion to help.

The bench was hearing a PIL (Personal Interest Litigation) challenging the guidelines of the Centre, DU, and CBSE for the change of name and gender by a person. The petition has contended that the guidelines under challenge are “depriving her of the right to live with dignity and to self-identify her gender which is different from the one assigned at birth.”

This was not agreeable to both the education bodies as CBSE stated that name and gender needed to be changed before the 10^th or the 12^th grade, and DU responded by stating that to make changes in the University’s records, changes must be made in the school records.

The High Court disapproved of their stand and responded, “You cannot say its history for you. You keep your history, but give her a certificate declaring her changed name and gender. Give a declaration without changing your records. You should understand the practical problems they suffer. If they apply for a passport now, it will be put in objection due to contradiction in her name and gender no and what is shown in their education records. You need to be considerate. You cannot put everyone in one basket and say you won’t do it.”

The court by stating, “let us work out what can be done” further assured the petitioner that her right to gender identity was a Constitutional Right recognised by the Apex Court. It instructed both the statutory bodies to come with solutions with respect to the problem and listed this case for further hearing on 13^thMarch 2019.

Image Credits: World Politics Review

Stephen Mathew

[email protected]

Anushree Joshi

[email protected]

(With inputs from The New Indian Express)

Keep Reading