Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Mr. Kamal Singh, Mr. Saket Verma & v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS

Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for University of Delhi. + W.P.(C) 263/2025, CM APPL. 1313/2025 ANANYA BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Tripathi, Adv. versus DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for University of Delhi. + W.P.(C) 277/2025, CM APPL. 1346/2025 MD SHAHABUDDIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Mr. Kamal Singh, Mr. Nisar Malik & Mr. Yogesh Kumar Dubey, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for University of Delhi. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Mrs. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advs. for Bar Council of India. W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 + W.P.(C) 294/2025, CM APPL. 1443/2025 ATIRIYA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Mr. Kamal Singh, Mr. Nisar Malik & Mr. Yogesh Kumar Dubey, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for University of Delhi. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Mrs. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advs. for Bar Council of India. + W.P.(C) 487/2025, CM APPL. 2245/2025 MUKUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Mr. Kamal Singh, Mr. Nisar Malik & Mr. Yogesh Kumar Dubey, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for University of Delhi. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Mrs. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advs. for Bar Council of India. W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 + W.P.(C) 82/2025, CM APPL. 5094/2025 YASHVARDHAN CHAWDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Ms. Shweta Singh, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for University of Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA J U D G M E N T DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J:

1. The present petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents to issue admit cards and the petitioners to appear individual semester examinations, which were scheduled to be held from 07.01.2025. 2. Briefly stated facts as per the petitions are that the petitioners are presently enrolled as students in different semesters (Ist/IIIrd/Vth) at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, where they are pursuing their Bachelor of Laws (L.L.B) degree. Respondent no.2 published a list of detained students for the reason of shortage of attendance on

04.01.2025, wherein the names of the petitioners were mentioned, and therefore, they were not issued the admit cards for the concerned semester exams. Hence, petitioners have approached this court seeking W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 directions for the issuance of admit cards and liberty to sit in the examination. The necessary particulars of the petitioners debarred to appear are reproduced below in a table:- S. Case No. Petitioner Semester LC Attendance(%)* N.

1. W.P.(C) Rojalini 1st semester LC-I 42% Parida

2. W.P.(C) Harshit 3rd semester LC-II

57.84% Gopalia

3. W.P.(C) Vishul 3rd semester LC-II

67.54%

4. W.P.(C) Kapasia Zimmi Naaz 1st semester LC-II 54%

5. W.P.(C) Vikas 1st semester LC-II 68% Sangwan

6. W.P.(C) Ananya 3rd semester LC-II 54% Bansal

7. W.P.(C) Md 3rd semester LC-II 69% Shahabuddin

8. W.P.(C) Atiriya 3rd semester LC-I

56.58% Sharma

9. W.P.(C) Mukul 3rd semester LC-II

61.94%

10. W.P.(C) Yashvardhan 3rd semester LC-II

31.34% Chawdhary W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 * This percentage includes the remedial classes attended. Submissions of Petitioner/Rojalini Parida

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the Law Faculty issued a date sheet which was later on withdrawn by them due to massive protests by the students highlighting the mismanagement and incomplete syllabus. Due to this protest, the Faculty of Law tried to cover up the situation and issued a schedule for the remedial classes. The petitioner attended most of the lectures of the remedial classes with full participation.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner is a bright, intelligent student with a good academic record, and now her future is at stake due to this arbitrary decision of Respondent No. 3 to detain her for the first-semester examination. It was submitted that the Law Faculty administration hastily released the detainee list on 04.01.2025 in the late evening, which was the last working day for the administration. Learned counsel submitted the Petitioner approached administration and requested help but was denied. It was also submitted here that stopping the Petitioner from appearing in the examination after issuing her a valid admit card for her examination is arbitrary and illegal in itself. Submissions of Petitioner/Harshit

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the classes for the 3rd semester of the respondent college started from 08.08.2024, however, due to the backlogs of the petitioner, respondent no 2 did not allot the W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 petitioner any section in the 3rdsemester stating that he shall be allotted a section only after the results are declared. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner visited the Administrative office of respondent no 2/Faculty of Law, requesting them to allow him to attend the classes since it would affect not only his attendance but also his studies. However, officials from the Administrative office did not pay any heed to the requests of the petitioner and asked him to wait for the results to be declared.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the results were declared by the respondents on 13.09.2024, and even after the declaration of the results, it took respondent no. 2 seven days to allot the section to the petitioner and the petitioner was allotted section „E‟ on 20.09.2024. It was submitted that the petitioner attended classes with due diligence after 20.09.2024. However, despite that, the petitioner fell short of the requisite attendance mandated by the respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that from 08.08.2024 to 20.09.2024, 120 classes were held by respondents, which the petitioner could not attend merely for the reason that the respondents did not allot any section to the petitioner to study.

7. Learned counsel also submitted that a few days after the petitioner was allotted his section, the petitioner got a critically high fever, due to which he went to his hometown. It was further submitted that there were holidays for Navratri and Dasheshra the respondent University. It was furthermore submitted that the petitioner, due to his high fever, could start attending all his classes only from November 2024 onwards. W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 Submissions of Petitioner/Vishul Kapasia

8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/Vishul submitted that the academic session for the 3rdsemester started on 22.08.2024, but there were inadequate faculty (teachers), due to which the timetable could not be followed properly, and many times, the schedule for the lectures was changed without giving proper information to the students. Learned counsel submitted that the students raised this concern before the authorities many times, but there was no improvement in the situation. Learned counsel further submitted that there was complete mismanagement on the part of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 regarding the arrangement of faculty and conducting lectures for the students.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner got a good internship opportunity in October 2024, and he accepted the same for practical knowledge and skill improvement. During the internship, the petitioner was also equally vigilant towards his lectures, but Respondent No. 3 failed to hold the lectures as per the table/schedule in a proper manner, due to which the petitioner missed some lectures in October 2024. Submissions of Petitioner/Ananya

10. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/Ananya submitted that the respondent‟s denial to the petitioner from appearing in the exams is premised on an alleged non-payment of fees. However, it was further submitted that upon discovering that the petitioner‟s fees had not been paid, the petitioner immediately rectified the situation by making the W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 payment when the respondents reopened the fees portal. Following this, the petitioner was informed by the respondent that she had been “provisionally detained” and was required to attend remedial classes. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that on 22.12.2024, respondent no. 2 released a provisional detainees list notifying all the students who were unable to meet the minimum attendance criteria set by the college authorities. The Petitioner‟s name was not present in the said list, which implied that the Petitioner had sufficient attendance. Learned counsel submitted that later on, in the detainee list declared on 04.01.2025, the name of the petitioner was reflected. Submissions of Petitioner/Atriya Sharma 12. Learned counsel submitted that the academic session for the 3rd semester started on 22.08.2024, but there were inadequate faculty (teachers), due to which the timetable could not be followed properly, and many times, the schedule for the lectures was changed without giving proper information to the students. It was submitted that the students raised this concern before the authorities many times, but there was no improvement in the situation. Learned counsel submitted that there was complete mismanagement on the part of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 regarding the arrangement of faculty and conducting lectures for the students.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner had some health issues during the semester, and also some of her family members were suffering from medical problems, so she missed a few classes in the present semester. W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 Submissions of Petitioner/Mukul

14. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/Mukul submitted that the academic session for the third semester started on 22.08.2024, but there were inadequate faculty (teachers), due to which the timetable could not be followed properly, and many times the schedule for the lectures was changed without giving proper information to the students. It was submitted that the students raised this concern before the authorities many times, but there was no improvement in the situation. Learned counsel also submitted that there was complete mismanagement on the part of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 regarding the arrangement of faculty and conducting lectures for the students. Learned counsel also submitted that the Petitioner was also suffering from various health issues, due to which he could not attend a few classes.

15. Learned counsel also submitted that the Faculty of Law gave an advertisement for the empanelment of guest faculties on 10.09.2024, and thereafter, the guest facilities were appointed properly in the last days of October, which caused a significant loss to the students concerning their lectures and attendance. Submissions of Petitioner/Yashvardhan 16. Mr.Pritish Sabharwal, learned counsel for the petitioner Yashvardhan Chawdhary, has also submitted that Clause 12(d) of Ordinance VII, Delhi University, was not followed by the respondents since October 2024, which mandates the colleges to notify the students regarding W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 their attendance on a monthly basis to enable the students to track their attended classes and address their grievances to the administration accordingly. It has further been submitted that Clause 12(a) of Ordinance VII, Delhi University provides that if a student of I/III/V semester does not fulfil the required attendance, but has not less than 40% of attendance, the Principal of the College may allow the student to appear in the examinations by giving an undertaking that he/she shall make up for the deficiency of attendance in the next semester. It has further been submitted that in the case of Adarsh Raj Singh v. Bar Council of India & Ors. 1 , the petitioners sought quashing of the notification dated 07.05.2018 issued by the Faculty of Law, whereby, the petitioners have been detained from appearing in their end- semester examinations and the Court, inter alia, allowed the petition, while observing that while violating Rule 10 read with Rule 2(xxiii) of the BCI Rules, by not holding mandated hours of classes, the same deprives the students of a reasonable chance to attend the necessary number of classes.

17. It is submitted that in the case of Aanya Kameshwar & Ors. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors.2, the Court allowed the petition while confirming the interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.06.2018, on the ground that only about 35% of classes viz-a-viz the requirement as prescribed in the BCI Rules, were held. It was, inter alia, stated that it was a clear case where the applicants were deprived of an opportunity to attend the requisite 1 W.P.(C) 5062/2018/ (2018) SCC OnLine Del 9714 2W.P.(C) 5285/2018/ (2018) SCC OnLine Del 9388 W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 number of classes to meet the prescribed attendance criteria, since the classes they had a legitimate expectation of attending, were just not held in the first place. Furthermore, reliance has been placed upon Courts on its own Motion In Re: Suicide committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University v. ……3,wherein this Court held that mandatory attendance requirement be complemented with other opportunities for alternative learning paths for students and that voluntary attendance also contributes to a positive academic atmosphere, where students attend classes out of interest and engagement rather than compulsion. In this case, the Division Bench of this Court directed the BCI to consider reducing the baseline requirement from 70% mandatory attendance.

18. Learned counsels for the other petitioners have adopted the arguments and vehemently argued that the petitioners could not attend the classes for reasons beyond their control, which include medical and other unavoidable reasons.

19. It is pertinent to mention here that in writ petitions bearing numbers W.P.(C) 82/2025 and W.P.(C) 136/2025, interim orders were passed on 08.01.2025. In the writ petition bearing number W.P.(C) 131/2025, an interim order was passed on 09.01.2025, and in writ petitions bearing numbers W.P.(C) 263/2025, W.P.(C) 277/2025 and W.P.(C) 294/2025, interim orders were passed on 10.01.2025. During the course of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that their result be declared and they be promoted to the next semester. Submissions of Respondents/Delhi University 3W.P. (Crl.) 793/2017 W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04

20. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the respondent/Delhi University, submitted that written submissions have been filed in W.P.(C) 136/2025, however, the same may be read in all the petitions. It is submitted that 15 weeks of lectures were put in, and the entire syllabus was completed before the commencement of the examination on 06.01.2025, and even, the remedial classes were held by the University in respective Law Centers from December 2024 to January

2025. It has further been submitted that the attendance in the remedial classes were also taken into account for calculating the attendance of each of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner still did not succeed in getting the minimum 70% attendance in aggregate and there is no relaxation provided by the BCI Rules, which have been adopted by the University of Delhi.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent/Delhi University, submitted that the reliance placed upon the order/judgment passed in Adarsh Raj Singh (supra) is misplaced. It is submitted that the batch matter was taken to the Division Bench by the University of Delhi in University of Delhi v. Adarsh Raj Singh 4 , wherein, the Division Bench specifically clarified that the order made in this case shall not be treated as a precedent and has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and based on the undertaking and concession given by the University, and therefore, would be applicable only to the petitioners who were before the Court in those proceedings. It is further submitted that the Court has consistently held that the Bar Council of India Rules are mandatory, and no further relaxation can be 42018 SCC OnLine Del 10781 W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 given than the minimum requisite attendance required. Reliance has been placed upon S.N. Singh v. Union of India5 and G.G.S.I.P.U. v. Naincy Sagar &Anr.6.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent/Delhi University submitted that the attendance position of the students is displayed on the notice board every month during the academic session. It is submitted that in a semester system, the timing of the end-semester examination is of utmost importance and any delay in holding the examinations has a cascading effect on the subsequent semesters. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the students of law who are well aware of the procedure adopted by the Faculty of Law. It is also submitted that the judgment passed in Ankita Meena v. University of Delhi 7 and in Alisha Gupta v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University8 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

23. In regard to the W.P.(C) 82/2025 filed by petitioner Yashvardhan Chawdhary, learned counsel for the respondent/Delhi University, submitted that Clause 12(a) of Ordinance VII of the Delhi University Act, 1922 is not applicable to the LL.B. course of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. It is submitted that the observations made in the case of In Re:Suicide committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P.U. (supra) were merely directions to the Bar Council of India to consider reducing the baseline requirement of 70% mandatory 52003 SCC OnLine Del 218 62019 SCC OnLine Del 11169 7(2021) 16 SCC 491 82020 SCC OnLine Del 648 W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 attendance, and no decision on the same has yet been taken by the Bar Council of India.

24. In regard to the W.P.(C) 263/2025, it is submitted that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria of minimum aggregate attendance. It is submitted that the interim order to appear in the examination was passed with a specific condition that no special equities shall lie in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Kiran Kumari v. University of Delhi9, has inter alia, held that minimum attendance is mandatorily required and there cannot be any further relaxation, since the minimum percentage of lectures still give to the students to miss or abstain from the balance percentage of lectures, which a student may miss for a variety of reasons, including sickness of such other reasons beyond the student‟s control. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 25. The High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, possess a wide and discretionary power to issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose where a legal right is involved. However, the writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy, available only under circumstances that warrant its exercise.

26. As reiterated in several landmark judgments of the Apex Court, such extraordinary power is to be exercised with utmost caution and circumspection. In R.C. Cooper v. Union of India10, the Apex Court inter-alia held that the power under Article 226 is expansive, 9W.P.(C) 9143/2007- Delhi High Court 10(1970) 1 SCC 191 W.P.(C) 389/2025 & 9 other connected matters Signature Not Verified Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:10:50 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:11.02.2025 19:04:04 extending beyond mere enforcement of Fundamental Rights to include legal right under the Constitution. This broad remedial jurisdiction, however, must be exercised within the confines of legislative limitations and established legal principles. In Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab11, it was inter-alia held that the power of judicial review inherent in the writ jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously. The Apex court underscored that the extraordinary remedy provided under Article 226 is not to be resorted to as a substitute for statutory remedies or for adjudicating matters where a specialized procedure exists. Lastly, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India12, the Apex Court reaffirmed that the power to issue writs under Article 226 is an essential attribute of the High Court‟s judicial function. Keeping in mind the above decision, it is clarified that power under Article 226 cannot be ousted or curtailed by any statutory scheme and must be applied to ensure that the actions of administrative or regulatory bodies conform to the rule of law.

27. While exercising its writ jurisdiction, the Court must act with circumspection, despite the broad discretion available. The Court must also ensure that such jurisdiction is exercised within the limits permitted by law. The discretionary power under writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in a manner that disrupts the functioning of a institution like Delhi University. It is pertinent to mention that in the writ jurisdiction, the court is primarily concerned with the decision making process then the decision itself. The power of judicial review