Latest
DU Beat – Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper
Tag

High Court

Browsing
Admissions

DU Publishes New Admission Criteria For All Courses

By

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The University of Delhi (DU) has now repealed the new eligibility requirements for admission to the B. Com.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]

 

Keep Reading
By
Admissions

High Court Directs DU to Extend Admissions Deadlines to 22 June

By

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

Priyanshu
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Admissions

Delhi High Court Seeks the Stand of the Centre and University in Opposing the New Admission Criteria

By

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]

 

Keep Reading
By
News

Wait Till the Election Ends for PM’s Degree, HC Delays Petition Seeking Disclosure of DU Results

By

 Delhi High Court on 23rd April deferred hearing a petition by Delhi University (DU) which challenged a Central Information Commission (CIC) order, allowing inspection of DU’s exam records from 1978, the year when Prime Minister Narendra Modi had also cleared his exam, under the RTI Act.

 

Justice V. Kameswar Rao posted the case for hearing on 25th July, soon after which DU sought an adjournment saying that Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General had gone to Gujrat to cast his vote and was hence not available.

RTI activists including Nikhil Dey, Anjali Bhardwaj, and Amrita Johri, along with their representative, Advocate Trideep Pais, have collectively filed an intervention application, saying that results are a public affair, hence should be available to all. They also argued that the varsity was denying the details of a particular year only – vis 1978.

In previous hearings, Delhi University had claimed that the exam records of all students are held in “fiduciary” capacity and disclosing the results could have far-reaching adverse consequences for the university.

The High Court was hearing a petition by DU, challenging a CIC order allowing activist Neeraj to inspect records of the students who had passed DU’s Bachelor of Arts (B.A) in the same year.

The university’s contention arose from the fear that inspection of all the results might be a deliberate attempt to seek  “personal information of a third party”. PM Narendra Modi is said to have passed his B.A from School of Open Learning (SOL) in the same year is at the epicentre of the probe.  His degree has been marred by controversies since Arvind Kejriwal raised objection on his qualifications in the post demonetization era.

Sequentially, a Central Information Commission order dated December 21, 2016, directed the inspection of results of all students who have passed BA exams in 1978. After DU appealed against the order, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva stayed the order in January 2017.  Earlier in March 2017, responding to an RTI by an Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) correspondent, SOL stated that it had no data of students passing out in 1978.

Image Credits: The Hindu 

 

Priyanshu
[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
DUB News

DRC Hostel Continues Ill-Practices Despite HC Inspection

By

The Daulat Ram College hostel residents continue to suffer at the hands of their matron as the HC Inspection is underway.

Unhygienic toilets, walls crawling with roaches and semi-cooked food, the tyranny of the Daulat Ram College hostel towards its residents continues.The residents of Daulat Ram College hostel have been protesting for months against the warden and the matron. Facilities in the hostel are in deplorable condition along with incessant moral policing and sexist comments.


In February residents of the hostel marched to the Vice Chancellors office and staged a sit down, demanding their rights. The Delhi High Court, finally intervened in the matter.During the inspection by court commissioners, allegations of harassment over social media posts and usage of makeup were reported.

In the detailed report by Nandita Rao and Shubham Mahajan, acute shortage of toilets and it’s facilities were reported. The rooms too were found to be in dilapidated condition.

An aura of fear and hatred surrounds the hostel, “The condition of the hostel is terrible. What is really disheartening is that one can bear the effect of the lack of infrastructure to some extent but the fact that there is nothing space for even mental relaxation is traumatizing. Several students are having anxiety issues and the matron doesn’t seem to care even a tad bit.” said, a second year resident of the hostel.

Another resident who chose to stay anonymous elaborates on the moral policing and harassment, “the matron takes printouts of social media pages like Instagram and shames the women. Her sexist remarks are nothing new.”

“It’s almost like she’s taking revenge” continued another student, “the washrooms were filthy before the protests and HC inspection, now they are worse. The food has affected my health. I can’t go back to the hostel, it’s a horrific place. It has affected my mental and physical health”.

The matron, Dr. Sushma Tandon has been the hostel matron for over 40 years has had compliance against her earlier as well. The tumultuous and tyrannical atmosphere has barely given students space to breathe.  

“The HC inspection took place about a month ago, and the commissioners who came were really helpful and sweet, and more than that understanding. But between the inspection, and the submission of this report, the SC gave a stay order to the current warden, which made the students lose all hope.” The matron has now reportedly resorted back to harassing students and students are forced to pay the mess fee which they had boycotted during the protests. The verbal abuse too, has ensued.

Students regret ending the protest too soon. “We had help from Pinjra Tod too however, we ended the protests too soon. Maybe that gave them an excuse to treat us this way”

The High Court has now directed the report should be placed before the Supreme court, which is hearing the matter relating to appointment of the girls hostel warden.

Image credits: DU Beat archives

Jaishree Kumar

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Uncategorized

Plea Challenging DUSU Election Results Moves to High Court

By

Three candidates from NSUI filed a plea in the Delhi High Court on how privately procured EVMs were used in the DUSU elections held on 12th September 2018.

On 17th September 2018, three candidates of National Students’ Union of India had moved the High Court challenging the elections on the grounds that voting machines were allegedly tampered with. The candidates were Sunny Chillar, Leena, and Saurabh Yadav who contested for the post of President, Vice President and Joint Secretary respectively in the Delhi University Students Union(DUSU) Elections 2018. The candidates questioned how privately procured Electronic Voting Machines(EVM) were used in the DUSU elections and how data from seven EVMs had allegedly gone missing.

NSUI Protest Sunday
Plea Moved in High Court Challenging Results of DUSU Elections

The counting of votes was stopped on 13th September 2018 for an hour when there were allegations of faulty EVMs. However, following the protests on the same day the counting was suspended. But it resumed in the evening after an elaborate discussion and agreement by the candidates.  A statement was issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer in Delhi. It said that the EVMs used in the DUSU elections were not issued to University of Delhi by them. The State Election Commission also clarified that they did not allot any EVMs to the University. It was said that the University had privately procured the EVMs.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal questioned the Election Commission over the privately sourced EVMs used in the DUSU elections. Taking it to the micro-blogging site Twitter, he tweeted, “From where can you procure EVMs privately? Doesn’t ECI claim that no one can manufacture or buy or sell EVMs privately? Isn’t anyone found in possession of EVMs without EC’s permission guilty of the criminal offence?” NSUI also staged a protest regarding the same on 15th September 2018 in the Arts Faculty, University of Delhi.

Letter (1)
Letter issued by the office of Chief Election Officer, Delhi. Source – Twitter

Responding to this, the High Court judge Justice Siddharth Mridul has directed the University of Delhi to keep secure the EVMs used in the DUSU elections along with paper trial and other documentation.

DU Beat contacted Sunny Chillar, NSUI candidate who stood for the post of President in DUSU elections. He said, “The High Court agreed to what we said and has given a stay on the same. Whatever happened on the day of vote counting was wrong and should not have happened. The choice of the students was different- It was Sunny Chillar from the beginning. We stand against the wrong and the fraud that took place. We will stand for the students and their rights irrespective of the fact that we win or lose in the elections.”

Feature Image Credits: DU Beat

Anoushka Sharma

[email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

High Court Directs DU to Declare the Results of the Debarred Law Students

By

In a bizarre chain of events, the Delhi High court has ordered the University of Delhi to declare the results of the students who had been erstwhile debarred from examinations.

The verdict comes as a relief to those students, whose results had been detained by the varsity on the grounds of insufficient attendance. The University has been directed by the honourable court that the students who pass their examinations shall be allowed to continue with their courses as per the Bar Council of India rules. Considering the gravity of the situation, the University has also been directed to allow those students, who fail these examinations, to appear for the supplementary examinations.

It must be noted here that the students who had failed to meet the attendance quorum of the University, had been allowed to appear for the End Semester examinations through an Interim Order on the same case, which was received on 6th July 2018.

The University, on its behalf, had filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the interim order passed by the Single Judge Bench on 6th July 2018, stating that the interpretation of Rule 10 and Rule 18 of the Bar Council of India, which deals with the minimum attendance quorum, as drawn by the Honourable Bench, was totally different from what they actually mean. According to the University, the relief given by the honourable court to the concerned students is totally contrary to what the law dictates.

This interim order, however, had not catered to the needs of all the students. There was a batch of students who had not been allowed to appear for the examinations. This time, the concerned Bench, comprising of Chief Justice Rajendra Memon and Chief Justice V. Kameshwar Rao, has allowed those students to appear for the supplementary examinations. Also, earlier, it was proclaimed that the results shall be declared in consultation with the fact that the candidates satiate the necessary attendance quota by attending extra classes/tutorials. However, the two-judge bench, clarifying that the decision was applicable only to the “peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”, delivered a gentle riddance to the students from this requirement, under the pretext that it was not the students’ fault if the classes had not been organised by the University.

On its behalf, Delhi University has pleaded that this unprecedented decision from the High Court shall force the varsity to face dire consequences. The fulfilment of the judgement, according to the University, shall not only create complications for those pupils who had appeared before the law, but also, it shall derail the entire admission process followed by the University for its L.L.B Course, thereby, making things exceedingly difficult.

The University of Delhi was represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, while the law students were represented by Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal along with Advocates Himansh Dhupar, Ashish Virmani, Samrendra Kumar, and Rajesh Mishra.

Aashish Jain

[email protected]

With inputs from Bar and Bench

Image Credits: Dslsa

Caption:  Results of only those students who had approached the court will be released.

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

The Rajasthan Ordinance: A Threat to Freedom of Speech and Expression

By

The government of Rajasthan has faced severe flak for tabling discussion on the much controversial Rajasthan Ordinance. Here is a look at why it is deemed to be a threat to freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed to every citizen as a fundamental right in India.

India is the host to the longest written constitution in the world which includes mandates for the very crucial fundamental rights, enunciated in Part 3 of the constitution. The said rights are granted to every citizen of India and accumulate to become the very basic unit and the essence of our democracy. One specific article, among the prolific, is Article 19 (a) which grants the citizens of the country the right to the freedom of speech and expression in India. It is often said that the media is considered to be the third pillar of democracy.

Recently, the Rajasthan government has been working on The Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance or the Rajasthan ordinance which was promulgated early September of this year. The amendment makes it mandatory to obtain the permission/sanctions of the state government before undertaking any investigation against a serving or retired judge, or a magistrate or a public servant: “In respect of any act done by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties”. The ordinance also forbids the publication of any material that discloses the identity of the alleged culprit till the government gives sanction for prosecution. Furthermore, this draconian ordinance the government of Rajasthan hopes to turn into an Act would also imprison activists, journalists and any person who chooses to speak out about a ‘corrupt’ public service in a public domain without obtaining the correct permissions.

This ordinance not only violates Article 19 of our constitution but also shows a clear contradiction to Article 14 (Right to Equality) guaranteed by the constitution. The sanction that the ordinance speaks of could take up to six months, during which the media would also be restricted to report about any cases related to the accused public servants. This ordinance does nothing but provides a blanket of security to those accused of corruption or criminal activity and basically grants them a special pedestal since they no longer would be treated as equally as a normal citizen before the law. The six month period could very well be used to tamper or dilute evidence.

This ordinance has been vastly criticised by the High Court, International Media and has been referred to as an “assault on democracy” by prominent political personalities. Many have branded this amendment act to be draconian and backward. The need of the hour is to ensure accountability among public servants and those holding public office. The implementation of this act will not only curtail that but provide an evil privilege to office holders.

 

Feature Image Credits: The Hindu

Bhavya Banerjee

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
News

Delhi HC asks authorities for a plan on defacement of public property

By

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed various authorities — including the Delhi Police, DMRC, MCDs, DU vice-chancellor, Union Home ministry, winning candidates of DUSU polls, the dean of students’ welfare, and the petitioner in the case of preventing defacement of public property during Delhi University Student Union election campaigning – to convene a meeting in order to devise a plan of action.

The court has also asked the winning candidates to place an action plan on how they proposed to clean the area and how future elections would be conducted. A bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar issued the order while hearing the plea filed by advocate Prashant Manchanda, as reported by The Indian Express.

On Monday, the elected student representatives — including DUSU president Rocky Tuseed and vice-president Kunal Sehrawat — were in court. Stating that many of the defaced properties bore his name, the bench sought an explanation from Rocky. Counsel for Rocky told the court that they had carried out cleanliness drives in the North and South campuses — with the help of students and NGOs — to remove the graffiti and spray paint, irrespective of which candidate or political party had carried out the defacement.

The plea highlighted defacement of public property in Delhi University, properties within the jurisdiction of the MCDs and the Delhi Metro. It added that it was next to impossible to completely remove the defacement. The bench then directed the authorities to file a report of the meeting — to be held on 27th October at 3 pm at the dean’s office — on the next date of hearing on 28th November.

The bench has further said that defacement of public property was a cognizable offence, punishable with 10 years in jail. Rocky and the other candidates assured the bench that they would not do so in future.

 

Feature Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Ankita Dhar Karmakar
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

Rocky Tuseed barred from entering DUSU office

By

The elected president of DUSU has been barred for now from entering the office. On Thursday, he was told that the university will have to take legal opinion before he can take charge as DUSU president after a criminal case against him came to light. The case dates back to a complaint made on August 6, 2014, by a final-year student of Shivaji College, Bhagat Singh, who alleged that he was beaten with a “wooden stick” by Tuseed and his three associates. The varsity, however, asked the other three office-bearers to collect the keys for their respective offices.

Tuseed, along with his supporters protested at proctor’s office and attempted convincing that the court order does not mention that he should be withheld from taking over as the president.
The proctor’s office maintained they will not act till there are consultations with the university’s legal team. The arguments on framing of charges in the 2014 case against Tuseed will take place on October 16.
The 2014 complaint, filed at the Rajouri Garden police station, alleged that Singh had been “present in his college during the presidential election and some students were conducting a meeting”. According to the complaint, when Singh was leaving his college “he was stopped at the red light outside Shivaji College” by one of Tuseed’s associates.
It added that “minutes after stopping him”, three other men, including Tuseed, “reached the spot and hit him with a wooden stick”. Singh alleged that he had “received multiple injuries on his body and head”. “Police was informed and the man was taken to DDU hospital, where he was discharged after first-aid.
Police also arrived and recorded Singh’s statement. On the basis of Singh’s complaint, a case was registered under sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 323 (causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 34 of the IPC,” a senior police officer said. Tuseed was arrested and sent to a 14-day judicial custody in Tihar before he got out on a bail.
Speaking to Indian Express Delhi Police officials said after that day, the complainant has been absent and no further contact has been made with him.
Meanwhile, the Vice-president Kunal Sherawat had assumed the office while the secretary, Mahamedhaa Nagar, and joint secretary, Uma Shankar, were yet to collect office keys from the proctor’s office.

 

Image Credits: DU Beat Archives

 

Sandeep Samal

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By