In a significant move, the Delhi High Court recently allowed writ petitions filed by Campus Law Centre (CLC) students whose exam results were withheld for attendance shortage. The judgment relied on Sushant Rohilla and its observations on the Legal Education Rules, 2008, to disqualify lack of attendance as a reason to detain students.
Justice Jasmeet Singh held, "Once lack of attendance is held not to constitute a valid ground for detention, all consequential benefits flowing therefrom shall necessarily follow. These shall include, but not be limited to, promotion to the next semester, declaration of results, permission to attend classes, and conferment of the LL.B. Degree, in accordance with law."
The students moved court contending that the detainee list was released three days prior to the commencement of examinations, without publishing monthly or aggregate attendance records. The University prevented the students from appearing in the first exam, but consequently issued a notification that provisionally allowed detained students to appear in the remaining examinations, subject to a report of an enquiry committee.
With no enquiry committee constituted, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the detained students, whose results were eventually withheld. Within a month of declaring the other results, Delhi University then issued an order cancelling the results of the detained students and subsequently directed them to re-take the examinations. Justice Singh noted in the order that the petitioners had furnished undertakings to abide by an enquiry committee before the pronouncement of the judgment Sushant Rohilla case.
"Much emphasis was sought to be placed by the respondents on the undertakings furnished by the petitioners, whereby they had agreed to abide by the decision of the Committee. It is, however, not in dispute that such undertakings were obtained prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sushant RohillaTo the extent such undertakings operate contrary to the law subsequently declared by this Court, they cannot be permitted to prevail. It is a settled principle of law that an undertaking which is contrary to a statutory provision or runs counter to the law declared by a constitutional court is unenforceable and cannot be sustained."
The Court directed Delhi University to not detain any petitioners on the grounds of attendance. "If there is any result given in sealed cover, the same shall be declared expeditiously and not later than two weeks from today," it ordered. Pertinently, a battery of advocates appeared in favour of students in the case.
Follow us
