MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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.

Similar News