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

High Court

Browsing
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
News

Delhi High Court calls Indian education system “dehumanised” and “a machine” in Sushant Rohilla’s alleged suicide case

By

On 11th July 2017, a Delhi High Court bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Najmi Waziri made an acute oral observation on the failure of the Indian education system as a whole, while hearing the Supreme Court plea initiated in September 2016, regarding Sushant Rohilla’s alleged suicide. On the matter, which was transferred to the Delhi HC in March 2017, the bench made a scathing remark: “It (the education system) is completely dehumanised. It is a machine. The human element has been completely taken out. The contact between teacher and student is perfunctory… We seem to be mass producing clones… You must conform at all costs, else retribution is swift.”

The bench also remarked directly upon Amity Law University’s “element of callousness” in handling the sensitive issue, as Rohilla was a third-year student there, barred from sitting in the semester examinations due to low attendance. “The student reached out to you. He cried out for help. But did you respond?” the court asked of the varsity, which continued to defend its attendance norms as a basic system of checks and balances meant to establish discipline. This system, however, is not above offering assistance to its students and accommodating improvements where necessary, Amity also claimed. The varsity is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), which was given the  last chance to file an affidavit recording its stance on the subject.

Sushant Rohilla’s classmates took to social media with a fervour post his death, alleging his harassment and charging the teachers with apathy and negligence. So far, the outrage fuelled online has caused two of the professors to resign. Most significantly, it was a letter written by Raghav Sharma, another final year student of Amity and a close friend of Rohilla, to the then CJI TS Thakur, which caused this PIL to be instituted in court. In the letter, Sharma puts the blame squarely upon the shoulders of the Amity authorities, citing reasons including medical issues which first prevented Rohilla from attending the classes, leading to his lack of attendance, then a severe depression at being barred from the exams, and all of it culminating in a suicide by hanging, at his own house on 10th August 2016.

The court appointed amicus curiae has intervened after examining a “shocking” status report filed by the Delhi Police, which not only did not consider the examination of any person necessary with regard to the complaint but also insinuated that the suicide note may not have been written by Rohilla himself. Unconvinced, the court has asked for a transfer of the “compromised” investigation, to be monitored by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Delhi). The DCP must now file a detailed probe report before the next hearing on 8th August 2017.

So far, all the elements in the case seem to be working against Amity and the varsity’s officials involved. But most importantly, the court’s statement takes into account what the current education system and inhumane red-tapism tend to leave out—the worth of a student’s life. It is an essential point raised, and one which directly concerns all students pursuing or hoping to pursue a higher education in the country. Minimum attendance as a pre-requisite for marks and entry to exam halls has been a matter of much discontent and protests in the last few years in the University of Delhi (DU) too, with ECA and Sports quota students especially crying foul. Those against the mandate argue about the injustice of having to sit in class, even when unable to, for reasons ranging from serious health issues to a simple lack of interest in certain lectures. University students, after all, are responsible adults in the making. Why must they be robbed of the autonomy to choose and to make the simple decision of which classes to attend, and which to skip out? Only time will tell what the verdict on Rohilla’s case shall be, yet the court has made a vital statement in the initial hearing itself, giving hopes to the entire student community.

Image credits: Hindustan Times

 

Deepannita Misra

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
Admissions 2017

No LLB seat cuts in Law Faculty, says Delhi High Court

By

Putting a pause on the ongoing tussle between students and the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Delhi High Court has asked Delhi University to admit 2,310 students in the LLB course for the 2017-18 academic session.

Manmohan and Justice Vinod Goel, in an interim order, reasoned, “Don’t reduce the number of seats. Students want to study, let them study. DU has been teaching 2,310 students till now. You (BCI) decided to reduce the seats to half. We need time to decide the case. Till then let 2,310 study.”  

The bench has posted the matter for the next hearing on August 21st.

The court’s order came from a PIL by lawyer Joginder Kumar Sukhija, against the decision of the 800+ seat cuts. The petition asserted that by reducing the seats, public money, which was used to provide grant to the varsity, would not be put to optimal use. Other than that, a large number of students will be affected if the seats were reduced.

In August 2016, the BCI has asked Delhi University (DU) to admit a maximum of 1,440 students in its three centers LLB courses, and to shutdown colleges offering law courses in the evening shifts. The policy decision of shutting down evening colleges has been taken after the BCI reported that the law programmes offered in evening and night hours do not comply with rules that appropriate the quality of legal education that is imparted to students.

However, Delhi University opposed the reduction of seats for the law graduate course, on grounds that it had improved its infrastructure and increased the strength of its teaching faculty.

Earlier this month, BCI had also imposed a penalty of Rs 30 lakh on DU for not paying affiliation fees and continuing to teach without permission.

Following the seat cut proposal, many protests have been held across the campus against the proposal. While, this latest development is seen as a major relief to law aspirants, but whether or not there will be a seat cut in the next academic session will only be made clear after August 21st.

 

Image Credits: DU Beat

Niharika Dabral
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Daulat Ram College

Delhi High Court clears path for appointment of Daulat Ram College principal

By

On Monday, 10th March 2014, the Delhi high court authorised the Daulat Ram College trust to appoint a new Principal of the college, instead of functioning under an acting principal. At present the college is being served by Dr. Daya Aggarwal, the acting principal of the college, who is the sister of BJP leader, Vijay Goel. The college moved to the court in order to seek evacuation of Dr. Daya Aggarwal, who was avowed as acting principal of college on February 2, 2013.

Delhi University had issued a notification regarding the appointment of a regular principal in the college on March 7, after an executive council meeting for the qualification. In response to which, Justice Shakdher disposed off the petition, stating that the college can now appoint a new principal.

The college trust accused that Dr. Aggarwal was “occupying” the post of acting principal without sanction or approval of the governing body while the University has been constantly interfering in appointment of the college principal and insisting the college trust to reappoint Dr. Daya Aggarwal as acting principal.

Her term was to expire in August. However, the trust alleged it was compelled re-appointment, regardless of the fact that she is not fit for the post. The college had to appoint an acting principal for terms of six months each on temporary basis and she was re-appointed to the post in August 2013 and then again in February 2014.
DU’s assertion to make Dr. Aggarwal hold the post despite being unsuitable for it, connotes that the university wants to exercise control over the college and encroach the autonomy of the college, stated Justice Rajiv Shakdher.

The college has also accused Dr. Aggarwal of misconduct and had bought many instances under the notice of university via letter and representations, but all went in vain. She is accused of not having the college accounts audited which led to University Grants Commission stopping the second installment of the grant to the college. She has also faulted in paying many hostel bills and salaries. She has flouted rules and transferred Rs. 4 crore, in the months of September and October, from student’s fee fund to pay teacher’s salary for two months.

Thus, after listening to both the parties, Justice Shakdher settled the dispute, asking the college to appoint a new principal, replacing the Dr. Aggarwal.

Keep Reading
By