High Court


The possibility of a Gay Judge being appointed to the Delhi High Court is definitely a step forward but what does this mean in the larger context of legalization of civil union of same-sex marriages?

Saurabh Kirpal is still slated to be the first openly gay judge of the Delhi High Court. In a more perfect world, only his qualifications to be a judge would matter and be of any consequence to the nomination board making the decision and the larger body of jurisprudence Kirpal would be serving upon his nomination. His identity as a cis-gendered gay man should be incidental, something to be neither extraneously celebrated nor held against him. Yet it’s hard to deny the suspicion that his nomination, pending 2017, fell victim to his sexuality. It was deferred every year. The government denied the red flags had anything to do with his sexual orientation, and argued that the nomination was denied purely on grounds of security concerns which rose out of the Swiss nationality of Kirpa’s partner Nicolas Germain Bachmann. The concern, which is deeply ironic, also points out two major fallacies in the stance taken by the government.

The concern of a foreign national spouse has never been a cause of concern in the case of Dr. S. Jaishankar whose wife Kyoto Jaishankar is of Japanese nationality. Furthermore the acknowledgement of a national threat being posed by Kirpal’s partner is an inadvertent admission of the existence of a same-sex couples in the higher political echelons of the Indian bureaucracy – something that the government has otherwise been blind to in general as far as the larger public is concerned. It points out the hypocrisy of the stance which acknowledgement same-sex partnership only on grounds of security concerns but denied the possibility of the same when citizens use its existence as a legitimate ground to demand recognition of civil unions between same-sex partners.

In the month of October the Union has told the Court its stance on same-sex marriages by saying that it went against the foundational objective of marital unions – reproduction, which could only be possible if there was a marriage between a biological man and a woman. In the end of November, the same-sex marriage hearings came up before the Delhi High Court yet again and was dimsissed by the court. The petition seeking to legalise the civil union of same-sex partners had sought the same under the Hindu Marriage act, Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act. The court argued saying that the same could not be granted under the Hindu marriage Act since same-sex partnership went against the precincts of Hinduism and a secualr state intervention in the issue of religion in a Hindu-majority population state would only be detrimental.

Some observers say India is lucky that it already has a Special Marriages Act that can be used to bypass issues of religion and could be a way to allow same-sex civil marriage. But the government has already made clear that just because homosexual sex was decriminalised it did not mean homosexuality and its anciliiary institutions were being legitimised, thereby keeping recognition of same-sex marraige off the table as far as the Centre was concerned. This brings to light a larger debate concerning the existence of freedoms for citizens without the right to act upon it. Currently owing to the historic decriminalisation of Section 377, homosexuality can no longer be punished by law. However the carrying out of any form of love, if desirous to be resultant in marriage, will not be recognised by the State on grounds of it harming the social fabric of the community at large. Furthermore, the non-existence of acknowledgement of civil unions denies same-sex partners rights to tools of public assistance such as insurance and property rights as well.

But as the case of Kirpal proves, these lines are trickier to navigate than we ever imagine. It was inevitable that the ball would not stop rolling at decriminalisation just because the government drew a line in the sand. Gay people cannot come out of the shadows yet leave their relationships in the closet. One could debate about whether marriage should be the top priority for the movement and whether the whole idea of trying benefits to marriage is outdated but it’s only natural that LGBTQ popeople would want the same rights as everyone else. In fact various trans-rights have criticised the decision to legalise marriage in an atmosphere where the discriminatory Trans Bill still holds sway over the populace as emblematic of the mainstream ueer movements repeated erasure of gender minorities and trans bodies in favour of cis-gendered, upper-class queer folks. Their primary critique being directed at the lawyer duo Arundhati Katju and her partner who have in many ways become the face of the liberation movement at large. While their advocacy intentions are never questioned their prominence as the face of the movement is repeatedly brought to question as they embody the centralisation of cis-gender upper class domination of queer discourses.

Currently the debate around marriage in India is wrapped around symbols and rituals. Does Dabur get to give a lesbian twist to Karva Chauth in an advertisement for skin bleaching products which have been at the receiving end of criticism for more than a year now following moves by brands like Fair and Lovely in changing well established marketing strategies? Can fashion designer Sabyasachi pair a mangalsutra, an ornament that is situated in a historicity of patriarchy and misogyny, with low necklines and suggestive intimacy following being heavily criticised for selling Indian artisanship to western corporate setups? What truly are the politics of a brand like Tanishq showing a Muslim family organising a traditional Hindu baby shower for their Hindu daughter-in-law in a country where the marketing head of the same company, which stands as one of the most reputed in its field, gets death threats on grounds of promoting love-jihaad?

The debate around such questions and scenarios can only be contemplated if one realises that the construction of marriage as a social document is not reductive to mere symbols – objective and metaphorical. Marriage is not only about bindis, mangalsutras and Karva Chauth but more about social acceptance and respectability and accessibility to public resources. Although gay weddings are the rage of the hour as clearly proven by the Telengana marriage reception, basic rights are still denied to same-sex partners. An event of heartbreaking magnitude can be traced back to the pandemic when an NRI married to an American same-sex partner was denied entry into India, although the same rule was relaxed for heterosexual couples of the same order.

As Sandip Ray puts succinctly in a Times Of India editorial with regard to the same,

In the end progress is about these boring things. The first openly gay judge on the Delhi High Court makes for a good news story and will be a point of inspiration for many. It is something to be welcomed but what LGBTQ Indians ultimately need are those joint bank accounts, the health insurance plans, joint custody of children and hospital visitation rights. Just like every other couple.”


Read Also
Section 377 – Has anything changed?
A Post-377 World: Is this really Freedom?


Anwesh Banerjee

[email protected]

What is the justification of that Judicial regimen, where due justice becomes a jargon of unjust juxtapositions judiciously jaundiced with jibes and jabber? 

Six years ago, a concern regarding justice in matters related to crime against women was raised before a panel of judges of the Calcutta High Court at a legal seminar in Asansol, the incident pondered another question about female participation in investigative teams and without much of surprise, there wasn’t a single woman advocate to actually answer my question or explain the condition anyways.

The pursuit of an egalitarian and gender-neutral society under due actions of female representation and supervision of institutions seems quite paradoxical in the Indian context. While the legislature, is mostly up to the consensus of the general population, the rationality in demographics of the executive needs to be looked upon in a separate column, this leaves us with probably the most important of these institutions – The Indian Judiciary.

Over generations, the Indian Judiciary which has historically been a reserve of few mighty men has undergone multiple amendments to allow itself to cater to the rightful place and needs of women. The first initiative to enter the Black Robe Men Sanctuary was taken by a Bengali Calcutta University Law Graduate named ‘Regina Guha’, who applied as a pleader at the district court of Alipore on 1st September, 1916, her case was dismissed by a bench of male judges under the Legal Practitioners Act.

But, following the Sex Disqualification Act, 1919 another Bengali lady by the name of Sudhanshubala Hazra augmented another petition in Patna District Court for her appointment as a pleader. The bench at Patna High Court which was redirected to preside upon the case passed a similar judgment as of the previous case debarring her to enter the legal practice.

Sudhanshubala Hazra in the 1920s said, “If there is any country, where Lady practitioners are necessary, it is India… they (women) cannot instruct the lawyer of other sex and consequently they became victims to the dishonesty.”

After a great struggle the year 1923 saw the passage of Legal Practitioners (Women) Act dismissing the disqualifications based on sex. Since, then prominent female lawyers like Congress Leader Violet Alva, who became the first women lawyer to appear before a High Court in India in 1944, rose to limelight and advocated rights of women fiercely.

In 73 years of Independence, India witnessed just a few judges at the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. In 1959, Anna Chandy became the first female judge in an Indian High Court, subsequently more like Konameneni Amareswari and Janaki Amma were appointed later at different High Courts of India. But it was only in 1989, that M Fathima Beevi was promoted as the first female judge at the Supreme Court of India. In total out of the 214 ex-judges of the Supreme Court, only five were women, whereas out of the 33 sitting judges at the Apex Court only three namely India Malhotra, R Banumathi and Indira Banerjee are women.

Apart from the chair of the judge’s significant women have inspired young and aspiring advocates with their strong skills and iconic cases that have prospered tales for generations to come.

Flavia Agnes of the ‘Majlis’ foundation is the first name that one can think of for her gender and minority rights advocacy in courts and well as papers, her initiatives for action against domestic violence is a self-experience that inspired and helped many women rightly. The 2012 Nirbhaya Case prompted another strong advocate of Anti Rape Bill who has been a defining name in criminal, constitutional, media and policy laws. As a ferocious advocate of Free Speech, Karuna Nundy fought ardently for the survivors of Bhopal gas tragedy and has been leading many in the Anti CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) NRC (National Register for Citizens) and NPR (National Population Register) protests.

Veteran Supreme Court Advocate Pinky Anand who is currently serving as an Additional Solicitor General of India has expertise in Constitutional, Property, Family and International law. Talking about another and the first Additional Solicitor General of India, Indira Jaising is one of the highest-ranked leaders whose voicing of child, women and minority rights is hailed with respect, she has argued cases of homeless and environment concerns in the Supreme Court and is currently representing the students of Jamia Millia Islamia who suffered the Police brutalities and action. Vrinda Grover is another female lawyer who has raised student’s pleas in the previous case, previously she has represented the victims of the1984 Anti Sikh Riots and has been instrumental in the formulation of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010.

Rebecca John is probably the first woman Criminal lawyer who has handled numerous cases with like the 2008 Noida Double Murder Case. The Kathua Rape Case petitioner Deepika Singh Rajawat has certainly epitomized empathy with ferocious meticulousness; as a human rights activist, she has closely worked with ‘CRY'(Child Relief and You) and other NGOs.

The Corporate field would be incomplete without the famous and iconic Zia Mody who has sought to revolutionise the field for better at national as well as the global front. In a stark parallel to the corporate world, Sudha Bharadwaj has fervently advanced trade union and land acquisition laws in India, with a ground experience of working with the Dalits and tribals, Bharadwaj has strongly voiced their concerns multiple times. Lawyers like Menaka Guruswamy and Arundhati Katju who made a big progression after winning the battle against same-sex relationships are making their way as well.

With these names standing up to the double reputation of India’s judiciary and its women, the allegations, proceedings, and judgement regarding the sexual harassment charges levied against ex-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has rightly brought up the fears of women where the case went up to country’s apex Court but in a rather bizarre manner. This surely reiterates Sudhanshubala Hazra’s aforementioned quote and necessitates the female participation in Indian courts for the greater good of all.

Featured Image Credits: Scoopwhoop 

Faizan Salik

[email protected]



Delhi High Court places an interim order against the new JNU Hostel manual and asks JNU administration to keep registration fees, reservations, and priorities according to the old manual.

On 28thOctober 2019, The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Administration unveiled a new hostel manual with extremely steep hostel fee hikes. The rationale given by the JNU administration was that the hostel fees had not been revised for 19 years. However, these overall fee hikes would have led to JNU becoming one of the most expensive central universities in the country. The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) held massive and continuous protests against the decision by the administration, stating that according to the University’s own annual reports, 40% of the students who come from lower income backgrounds would not be able to afford the revised fees and would have to pursue education elsewhere, if at all.


Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court has granted a major relief to the students of JNU upon hearing a petition filed by AIshe Ghosh, JNUSU President and other office bearers against the new hostel Manual. According to a legal update dated 24th January, 2020, from JNUSU. The High Court has directed the JNU Administration to:

Firstly, allow for registration at old rates, as per the previous hostel manual; for students yet to register. Secondly, extend the last date of registration for a week without late fine. Thirdly, apply reservations and priorities/benefits according to the old hostel manual. And lastly, to hold dialogue with the students in order to resolve the issue.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who was hearing the case, points out that “Government can’t get out of education. Government has to fund public education. The burden of paying the salaries of contractual workers is not on the students. Someone has to find the funds.”

The next hearing of the case will be held on 28thFebruary , 2020.


Feature Image Credits: The Print


Prabhanu Kumar Das

[email protected]


The Delhi University’s plea challenging construction of a private real estate high-rise building in the University campus was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds of “delay and laches.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi University’s (DU) plea against the construction of a high-rise real estate building in the North Campus, as permitted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). On 12th May 2011, M/S Young Builders Private Limited received permission from the DDA for the construction of a housing society in the University campus without any height restrictions.

A total of three hectares of land was allotted to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) by the Ministry of Defence for the construction of the metro station, out of which two hectares were leased out for the construction of the private housing society. After a delay of seven to eight years, the University filed a plea challenging this construction before a single-judge bench in the Delhi High Court, however, the bench took note of the “delay and laches” and dismissed the plea on 27th April 2015.

Following this, a consequential intra-court appeal was moved before a two-judge bench of the High Court after a delay of 916 days. The court refused to overlook this delay of over two and a half years, pushing the University to move to the top court.

DU countered the DDA’s act of permitting construction of high-rise private buildings on campus and also sought to be excused for the delay in filing the first plea before the High Court. The University claimed that M/S Young Builders Private Limited’s construction of the group housing society was in violation of the Master Plan of Delhi-2021 and against the larger public interest, “given the fact that the project site in question and its vicinity are within the North Campus and that it contains historical buildings.” It also alleged that the construction site of these buildings was in proximity to various ladies’ hostels of the University, hence raising “an important privacy concern.”

However, top court bench, comprising Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna, stayed in agreement with the dismissal of the plea by the High Court on grounds of delay and laches. It said, “despite the writ petition having been filed belatedly in respect of certain actions which had commenced in the year 2005 and even though the writ petition was filed after obtaining approval of the Executive Council, no steps were taken to file the writ appeal for 916 days after disposal of the writ petition. In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the delay and laches cannot be ignored”.

The Court also said, “We are of the opinion that not only the Single Judge was justified in holding that the writ petition inter alia is hit by delay and laches but the decision of the Division Bench in dismissing the LPA on the ground of delay of 916 days is also justified and the orders do not call for interference.”

Featured Image Credits: Jagran Josh

Aditi Gutgutia

[email protected]

A breakdown of the Aarey Forest conservation movement of Mumbai, in light of the current global climate crisis.

The Aarey Colony protests began on 5th October 2019, after the Bombay High Court (HC) allowed the Mumbai Metro to
cut nearly 2,500 trees to build a car shed for the new Mumbai Metro constructions in the vicinity. The HC’s move was in line with
a fine technicality that the Aarey Forest was not really a forest after all, but it was merely an urban cluster and hence it could
be felled for the purpose of establishing the Metro infrastructure. This move was met with severe backlash, as Mumbaikars
and green activists around the country opposed the felling of 2,500 trees that gave the much-needed respite from pollution
and heat to the residents of the colony.

The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) began to cut down trees in the area merely hours after the HC order, at odd hours of night in another move that faced resistance from citizens and environmental activists. The Mumbai police arrested close to 29 people on the charges of allegedly obstructing and assaulting police personnel at this protest. Many people, including several celebrities, took to social media to express their support with the activists protesting in the Aarey Colony. After these events, a special hearing on the matter was scheduled with the Supreme Court (SC) and, as a result, Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was implemented in Aarey Colony. Although lifted for the hearing, the section was later reimposed after the hearing.

The Apex Court, this past week, restrained authorities from cutting any more trees in Mumbai’s Aarey. A special bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Ashok Bhushan said that it would have to examine the entire matter closely, and it extended the date of the next hearing to 21st October, which would take place before its forest bench. The court also ordered the Mumbai Police to release all the activists who were arrested in the past two days.

The SC recorded an undertaking by the Maharashtra State Government, where it was assured that no more trees would be felled in Aarey. The SC observed that “…it appears that Aarey was some kind of forest at some time,” taking note of the 2012 Management Plan for the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, which describes Aarey as an unclassified forest.

The Court further lashed at the Maharashtra State Government,  “Tell us how many saplings you planted? How have they grown? What’s the status of your forests?” The Apex Court’s question came after the Mumbai Metro claimed that it had planted around 24,000 saplings to replace the trees it had cut in Aarey. The court asked the state authorities to also produce a mandatory afforestation report.

Rishav Ranjan — the law student whose letter to the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, was converted into a suo motu writ petition for the matter — has requested MMRCL Managing Director, Ashwini Bhide, to desist from any construction work in the area until the next SC hearing on 21st October.

Complex climate change situations necessitate nuanced interventions. However, for the most part, India has resorted to afforestation without consulting local communities or conducting serious impact assessment studies. In light of the latest global climate crisis, a Global Climate Risk Index released at the Katowice summit in Katowice, Poland, in 2018 showed that intense cyclones, excessive rainfall, and severe floods could make India and its neighbours among the worst affected countries in the world. This leads to the conclusion that afforestation is not enough. The
effects of climate change in tandem with the development agenda require a two-pronged, well-researched, and balanced
approach that needs to be initiated by the governments at grass-root levels.

Featured Image Credits: India Times

Bhavya Pandey
[email protected]

With the demise of India’s former Finance minister, Shri Arun Jaitley on 23rd August, 2019 and the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections around the corner, the Delhi High Court has asked the University of Delhi (DU) not be “too harsh” on student leaders since they have the potential to become the leaders of the country in future.

As reported by NDTV, while addressing a grievance of defacement of public property during 2017 DUSU elections, the High Court stated that the country gets great leaders from student leaders and the University authorities should not be too harsh on them for their activities during Students’ Union elections.

In a status report presented to the bench previously, a list of 15 students was rolled out who had been involved in the activities destruction of both public and private properties by spray paints and other means of causing defacement.

The bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar said, in an apparent reference to Jaitley, “Don’t be too harsh on them. Don’t put ban on everything. From student leaders, we sometime get great leaders for the country. You know the examples; you must have seen it yesterday,”

The bench also said that civil and criminal action would be initiated as per the law if anyone is found involved in damaging either public or private properties. It also asked that the Centre, the University and the police ensure that all the guidelines are followed and adhered to during this year’s election process. The message of having a wide publicity to be given to penal actions if anyone was found defacing public property was also given out.

The High Court had earlier said prevention of defacement of property during student body polls in the DU was more important than taking action against candidates after they indulge in such activity. It had also suggested putting in place deterrents like disqualification of candidates to prevent defacement of property during the student body polls.

It is thus, hoped that this election season for the DU rolls out peacefully without damage to any person or property and leaders of our future find their way into the government through their political journeys in DU.

Feature Image Credits: Rishabh Gogoi for DU Beat

With Inputs from NDTV

Amrashree Mishra

[email protected]

The Delhi High Court refused to consider a petition which sought University of Delhi to take responsibility for providing all regular college students with hostel accommodation on Wednesday.

The High Court bench comprising of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar gave unanimous decision on the aforementioned matter, and also said that the varsity was not under any statutory obligation to provide hostel accommodation to all students.

The petitioner Parveen Kumar Singh invoked section 33 of the Delhi University Act of 1922, which states that every student of the University shall reside in the College Hall or under such circumstances as prescribed by the Ordinances. This plea furthered that the regular students who were unable to secure a hostel seat should get a monthly stipend of INR 10,000.

The court was of the view that this interpretation of the section 33 was not economically viable as it would cost the University crores of rupees.

The petition which is filed through advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra further stated that of the 1,84,668 students enrolled in DU as per an RTI reply, only 6,235 or 3.37% have hostel accommodation.

Accomodation crunch in the University has been an issue for a long time. Due to lack of subsidised accomodation facilities, students have to give in to privatised facilities. The students who do not get the hostel accommodation are exploited by the landlords and property dealers who charge excessive amounts of money for accommodation.

The previously mentioned plea also sought to declare the area in and around the 5-kilometres radius of Delhi University’s South and North Campus as a “Special Students Zone”. It was suggested that this zone should have a fixed minimum rent for the accommodations.

The same plea also sought to end the inequal rates of departmental canteen food for staff members and canteen food for students. It stated that the prices of both should be harmonised, and operate on a break-even basis.  

On this matter, court pointed out that it is not incumbent upon the present judicial body to regulate prices in the University canteen. It is a policy issue that has to be looked at by the competent authority itself.

Advocate Mishra said that he would now move the higher court against the decision of High Court.

Feature Image Credits: DU Beat archives.

Antriksha Pathania
[email protected]

With the High Court ordering University of Delhi (DU) to scrap the new admission criteria for B. Com. (Hons.) and BA Economics (Hons.), other courses may also be given the same relaxation.

The University of Delhi (DU) has now repealed the new eligibility requirements for admission to the B. Com. (Honours) and BA Economics (Honours) courses. This move comes following the Delhi High Court orders, after a considerate amount of criticism and a plea against the controversial move to include Mathematics in Best Four Subjects aggregate for the two courses.

DU has released a new Bulletin of Information for admission to undergraduate courses on Monday, based on the 2018-19 eligibility criteria. It has been observed that the new eligibility criteria for other courses has similarly been replaced with that of the last year.

The Court had previously called this move arbitrary, and beyond requesting the varsity to repeal it. It also had asked to extend the process till June 22nd, which was previously June 14th. This order has also been implemented.

A bench of Justice Anu Malhotra and Justice Talwant Singh stated, “There is no dispute that you (DU) to be in tune with the times. Nothing prevents you from improving the education standards. No one is saying your decision is not right, but your timing may not be right.” They further added that these criteria can be applied only with six months’ prior notice.

These changes were put forth by recommendations from different departments in the varsity and then needed approval from the Standing Committee, Academic  Council. But the members of the Executive Council, prior to the conundrum, requested the Vice Chancellor in a letter to not give his approval.

While the inclusion of Mathematics in best of four for B.A. Economics (Hons.), and 50% marks in Mathematics for B. Com. (Hons.) are now not compulsorily required. There is currently a requirement of 55% marks in English for B.A. English (Honours) and in Hindi for B.A. Hindi (Honours). B.A. Programme, B.A. Urdu (Hons.), Arabic (Hons.), and Persian (Hons.) also have a new eligibility criterion for 40% in class 10th or 12th in the respective subjects.

Stuti Tanotra, a Delhi University aspirant expressed her joy stating, “Under the new criteria, my Best of Four (BoF) was getting reduced and I was apprehensive about getting a good college for Economics. Now that this has been scrapped, I am very happy my BoF has increased, and now I look forward to studying Economics at DU.”

This change has led to a lot of changes in not just the extending of admissions, but also a delay in releasing cut-offs as well as the dates for the trials of extracurricular activities, and consequently admissions. St. Stephen’s College has also extended its dates and the cut-off for interviews will now be released on June 24th.

Applicants can check the new corrigendum on the University’s official website: http://www.du.ac.in/adm2019/


Feature Image Credits: The Times of India

Shivani Dadhwal

[email protected]


Considering difficulties that the applicants might face, Delhi High Court has ordered DU administration to continue with previous year’s admission criteria. The decision comes along with the extension of registration dates.

The last day for registration which was ought to be June 14 has been extended to June 22 by Delhi High Court. The HC order which reprimanded the varsity of its abrupt decision of changing admission criteria has also asked the university to revoke it. The decision was met with criticism by teachers and students alike, as reported by DU Beat earlier. The recent changes involved inclusion of maths in the best of four subjects for admission in B.Com (Hons.) and BA(Hons.) Economics.
While hearing three petitions against Delhi University the bench made it clear that changes in eligibility criteria have to made in accordance with law, which would require a minimum of six months of public notice to the public at large. It also debarred the university from making changes to the eligibility criteria in the forth coming year to its UG courses.
Lawyers representing the varsity told the judges that DU changes its eligibility criteria every year and the Bulletin of Information (BIS) was meant for this specific year and therefore it didn’t qualify as a statutory rule. Lawyers also argued that no student will be deprived of admission due to changes in rules and if anyone is affected then they can approach the grievances committee.
“The High Court order to quash Delhi University’s new admission guidelines is good because the timing of DU’s decisions can be questioned as it can disrupt how people plan their admission. It’s not about questioning the quality of this decision but the timing could have been better.” says Ayaan Kartik, a Journalism undergrad at Delhi University.

On the issue of extension of dates, Kartik Pande, an aspirant says “I believe that this has two sides to it. The positive thing is that the people who accidentally missed the registrations or did some mistake can re register, while the negative thing is that the competition will increase for students. I don’t think I’m inclined towards any side as the decision is alright according to me so yeah that was it.”
Admission to various UG courses that commenced on May 30 has witnessed an entry of 3.31 Lakh applicants. The HC decision might extend the date of first cut off which has not been announced yet. As speculations suggest, the first list might release somewhere around the end of June.

Image Credit- Dainik Jagran

[email protected]

On 10th June, the Delhi High Court sought the position of the Centre and the University of Delhi (DU) on the plea which challenges the jolting changes made to the admission criteria for two of the most popular courses —  B.A. (Honours) Economics and B.Com (Honours). The Court further went on to call this amendment arbitrary due to its short notice.

This alteration of admission criteria was made a day before the University’s applications for Undergraduate (UG) courses were opened. This unforeseen step took several students by surprise, and raised the level of difficulty as well as complexity with respect to getting admitted to the said course.

After several discontented students contacted him, Sahibdeep Singh, an alumnus of Shri Ram College of Commerce, took up the cause. He first submitted an application to the Dean of Students’ Welfare Office and also started an online petition on change.org. This petition is called Roll Back New Admission Criteria: Request to University of Delhi, which is addressed to Yogesh Tyagi, the Vice Chancellor. It has already achieved 887 signatures and aims to reach 1000.  

The aforementioned plea by lawyer, Charanpal Singh Bagri, insisted that this step was in violation with the principle of natural justice. This plea further seeks to repeal the sudden amendment and urges that the previous criteria should prevail. Two members of the University’s Executive Council and three members from the Academic Council have also written a joint letter to the Vice Chancellor for immediate roll back.

The Court has further asked the Ministry of Human Resource Development represented by Advocate Brajesh Kumar, and the varsity to file its response in four days, by 14th June. That will be the date for the next hearing on this matter.

Devyani Arora, a B.Com (Honours) student commented, “This stand of the High Court has been a ray of hope to the students. The decision will be based on careful consideration, keeping in mind the lakhs of students holding their breath.”

St. Stephen’s and Jesus and Mary College will continue with the previous admission criteria.

Feature Image Credits: Jagran Josh


Shivani Dadhwal

[email protected]