On Thursday, the Delhi High Court issued an order barring six students from attending classes at St. Stephen’s College. The decision comes in response to a challenge by the college against a single judge’s interim order that had granted provisional admission to these students based on Delhi University’s (DU) seat allocation.
Key Points of the Court’s Ruling:
- Interim Order: The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, noted that the single judge’s order from August 23 effectively granted relief to the students in their main petition. The court ruled that until further orders, the students should not attend classes at St. Stephen’s College.
- Alternative Admission: The court directed that the students be allowed to take admission in their second preference colleges, with the university required to facilitate this process.
- Hearing Date: The bench advanced the hearing date of the petition from September 11 to September 5.
- University Criticism: The court criticized DU for allotting more students to the college than its sanctioned capacity, describing it as a serious issue affecting students’ careers. It emphasized that the situation is not a trivial matter and urged the university to address the problem appropriately.
College’s Concerns:
- Violation of Principles: The college argued that the interim order violated principles of natural justice, claiming it was not given a fair opportunity to present its case. The college alleged that the students were admitted beyond its sanctioned intake and that the order violated its rights under Article 30 of the Constitution, which allows minority institutions to select their students.
- Miscalculation: The college contended that DU miscalculated the number of available seats, resulting in an excess allotment.
Student’s Stand:
- Opposition to Appeal: The students’ counsel opposed the college’s appeal, arguing that the admission was not provisional but final. The counsel stated that the students would not consider admission to their second preference colleges as they had already been allocated seats at their preferred institution.
Court’s Observation:
- Provisional Admission: The court remarked that students treating their admission as final contradicted the provisional nature of the interim order. It underscored the importance of circumspection in directing admissions through interim orders without adequate notice to all parties involved.
The single judge had initially granted provisional admission to the students, noting that despite their successful CUET exam results, they were left in suspense regarding their admission status. The case continues as the court reviews the concerns raised by both parties.
