Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed by the appellant, who was shortlisted for the three-year LLB course in Law Centre II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi as part of the 2022-2025 batch to consider whether he, who was detained by the Delhi University (respondents No. 1 and 2) from sitting for the first term LLB examination due to shortage of attendance, should be required to seek readmission, given the fact that the deficiency in attendance was attributable to the appellant being afflicted with disease. A Division Bench of Amit Bansal and Rajiv Shakdher, JJ., directed the respondent to re-admit the appellant with the batch of 2024-2027 students stating that even though the BCI has advised institutional empathy, the University, for some reason, refuses to acknowledge that it is conferred with power to allow students to continue with their education, interrupted due to genuine medical ailments and other difficult circumstances that may be beyond their control.
The appellant was admitted to the three-year LLB course at Law Centre II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, for the 2022-2025 batch after clearing the entrance exam. However, soon after the classes commenced, he was diagnosed with psoriasis and informed his Class Representative and Professor-in-Charge about his condition. Despite producing a medical certificate declaring him fit to resume studies, the appellant failed to meet the attendance threshold of 70%. The University then published a detention list, which included the appellant, barring him from taking the first term exam and canceling his admission without providing written communication. The appellant, despite forwarding requests for reconsideration to several university officials, received no response. Consequently, he filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including restraining the University from canceling his admission and permitting him to repeat the first term with the next batch. The writ petition was dismissed, leading to the appellant’s appeal.
During the proceedings, the Bar Council of India (BCI) opined that students failing to meet attendance requirements due to genuine reasons should be allowed to complete their course without fresh admission. However, the University maintained that students failing to meet attendance criteria would have to seek readmission, citing provisions in the Prospectus, Ordinances, and certain judgments. The appellant’s plea primarily revolved around not wanting to retake the entrance exam and seeking readmission to the first term of the LLB course. The University’s stance was that readmission was necessary if students failed to meet attendance requirements, regardless of the reasons for their absence.
The Amicus Curiae emphasized that the provision for readmission under Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV should be applicable to the appellant’s case. It was argued that this provision applies to all students of the University and is not limited to general courses but extends to professional courses like LLB. He pointed out a conflict between Ordinance IV and Ordinance V, advocating that the specific provision in Ordinance IV should prevail over the provisions in Appendix II of Ordinance V. He also highlighted the change in stance by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which supported readmission for students facing genuine difficulties, urging the University to consider Article 5(b) for the appellant’s case.
Counsel for University, argued against readmission based on Ordinance V, which prohibits readmission for LLB students detained due to attendance shortage and emphasized that the appellant failed to challenge the provisions of Appendix II attached to Ordinance V, which allow readmission. He stressed that the appellant’s absence was significant, lasting for three months, and argued against granting special treatment. He also challenged the appellant’s claim regarding his medical condition, stating that psoriasis does not hinder normal activities and criticized the lack of substantial medical evidence supporting the appellant’s plea.
On the aspect of whether psoriasis is infectious or not, the Court perused the medical literature and observed that although psoriasis is perhaps not infectious, it is nevertheless a serious ailment which could impact vital organs such as lungs and the heart, and lead to death. However, since psoriasis is a skin disease which often takes grotesque forms, it can result in deep embarrassment for the afflicted person. A perusal of photographs that the appellant has placed on record shows that a large part of his body was infected. Thus, it would be unwise for anyone to underplay the seriousness of the disease, or the discomfort that it can cause to an afflicted person. Itching is a peculiar feature of the disease, which can lead to extreme discomfort.
The Court remarked that “The attempt to trivialize the appellant’s condition by alluding to the fact that the appellant had approached a homeopathic doctor is suggestive of the University’s inherent disbelief in the assertion made by the appellant that he had contracted the disease. One can take judicial notice of the fact that for certain kinds of skin diseases, homoeopathic medicine works and has brought relief to several patients. What is significant is that the University did not conduct any enquiry as to whether the appellant’s assertion that he was unable to attend his classes because of being afflicted with psoriasis was correct.”
On the aspect of his failure to disclose in the second writ petition filed by him that his earlier writ petition had been dismissed, the Court noted that this lapse need not necessarily be the reason for denying him relief if he is otherwise entitled to the same. On the further aspect of university contending that Ordinance V read with Appendix II prohibits the readmission of students who have been detained in the first term of the LLB course, irrespective of the reason for attendance shortage, the Court observed that the University’s authority to re-admit students, contrasting Ordinance IV, explicitly dealing with readmissions, and Ordinance V, focusing on courses of study. Despite the University’s reliance on Appendix II to prohibit readmission for LLB students, Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV, introduced later, allows readmission for students detained due to attendance shortage.
The constitutional framework of the University, governed by the Delhi University Act, establishes the hierarchy of authorities, empowering the Academic Council (AC) and Executive Council (EC) to enact ordinances. Thus, Ordinance IV’s provisions for readmission should prevail, considering they have undergone thorough scrutiny under the Act’s checks and balances. Therefore, the University’s stance on readmission lacks legal merit, and Ordinance IV applies to all disciplines, including professional courses like LLB.
The court underscored the need for institutional empathy and the importance of distinguishing between students who genuinely could not attend classes and those who were simply negligent. The Court suggested that technology could be utilized to accommodate students with genuine attendance issues and recommended revisiting attendance policies to balance maintaining educational standards with providing necessary support to students in difficult circumstances.
Thus, the Court set aside the decision of the Single Judge who dismissed the appellant’s petition, directing the University to re-admit the appellant in the next academic batch (2024-2027) in accordance with the BCI’s recommendation to accommodate such students.
[Tripurari Kumar Jha v. DU, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4220, decided on 31-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr Rajshekar Rao, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae), with Mr Harshil Wason and Mr Dushyant Kaul, Appellant, in person
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr Hardik Rupal, Advocates for R-1/ University of Delhi.