Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

Delhi HC Quashes JNU’s Decision to Cancel Ph.D Candidature, Emphasizes Compliance with University Ordinances

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court today quashed the decision of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to cancel the Ph.D candidature of Nazar Mohamed Mohaideen S., underscoring the importance of adhering to university ordinances and statutes.

The Court focused on the legal issue surrounding the discontinuation of a Ph.D scholar’s candidature contrary to the university’s statutes and ordinances. The core question revolved around the university’s adherence to its own regulations in assigning supervisors to Ph.D scholars.

The petitioner, a Ph.D scholar at JNU, faced issues with his supervisor, leading to a request for a change in supervision under Ordinance 6.6. The dispute escalated, resulting in the university’s decision to cancel the petitioner’s candidature, alleging non-availability of an alternative supervisor. The petitioner challenged this decision, asserting that JNU failed to follow its ordinances in managing the supervision arrangement.

The Court meticulously analyzed the university’s ordinances, particularly Ordinance 6.1 (appointment of research supervisors) and Ordinance 10 (grounds for cancellation of Ph.D candidature). It was noted that the JNU had deviated from these statutes, leading to an improper decision-making process. The Court emphasized that university practices must align with its governing rules and rejected the notion that ‘past practices’ could override explicit statutory provisions.

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated October 4, 2023, thereby reinstating the petitioner as a Ph.D scholar. It directed JNU to assign a new supervisor within two weeks, adhering to its ordinances. The Court also conditionally permitted the petitioner to continue under the supervision of Prof. Shailja Singh, provided he maintains appropriate conduct.

Date of Decision: 15th February 2024

NAZAR MOHAMED MOHAIDEEN vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

Latest Legal News