NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has observed that a university’s self-regulation ordinance should not override a student’s right to education and their right to live with human dignity. The court emphasised that educational institutions must make necessary accommodations to ensure that students facing medical challenges receive quality education.
These remarks came during a hearing in response to a plea from two students attending different colleges affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU). These students requested a transfer between institutions due to medical reasons.
One of the students explained that she is pursuing a BBA course at Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, which is located more than 30 kilometers from her home. She suffers from allergic rhinitis, a condition linked to symptoms affecting the nose, triggered by factors like dust, animal dander, or pollen.
The plea said these symptoms occur when one breathes in something they are allergic to and sought migration from one institute to another.
To facilitate her shifting, the other petitioner student, who studies in Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, agreed to an interchange and they both applied to the university for it.
They were aggrieved by a notification issued by the varsity on July 13 last year whereby Ordinance 7, which is related to migration of students, was amended and a complete ban was imposed with respect to intra and inter university migration.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said prima facie, a complete ban on migration was put in place on account of the recommendations of university’s expert committee which did not seem to be arbitrary or illegal.
The court, however, said the competent authority cannot be oblivious to the ground realities which may arise and this appears to be a case where a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted instead of being rigid to the general rule.
“The universities endowed with statutory discretion may legitimately adopt general rules or principles to guide itself as to the manner of exercising its own discretion in extraordinary circumstances. The universities should not be rigid while taking decisions in the cases where cogent reasons are given by the students for seeking migration,” it said.
The high court said students deserve quality higher education, and being devoid of that due to medical ailments beyond their control, will tantamount to doing “disservice to the future of this country”.
“It is incumbent upon educational institutions to make the necessary allowances to ensure that students, who are disadvantaged due to medical reasons, are also provided quality education. Therefore, the Ordinance of the universities for self-regulation cannot override a student’s right to education and the right to live a life with human dignity,” the court said.
It said the universities should consider extraordinary circumstances of the students and their application if there exist valid and justifiable reasons. Else, the exercise of discretionary power would stand vitiated for unreasonableness and arbitrariness, the court said.
The court directed the vice chancellor of GGSIPU to make a decision within six weeks and disposed of the plea.
If the vice chancellor comes to a conclusion that the grievance of both the petitioners was genuine and their request was acceptable, the same be accepted without being influenced by last year’s notification, it said.
These remarks came during a hearing in response to a plea from two students attending different colleges affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU). These students requested a transfer between institutions due to medical reasons.
One of the students explained that she is pursuing a BBA course at Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, which is located more than 30 kilometers from her home. She suffers from allergic rhinitis, a condition linked to symptoms affecting the nose, triggered by factors like dust, animal dander, or pollen.
The plea said these symptoms occur when one breathes in something they are allergic to and sought migration from one institute to another.
To facilitate her shifting, the other petitioner student, who studies in Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, agreed to an interchange and they both applied to the university for it.
They were aggrieved by a notification issued by the varsity on July 13 last year whereby Ordinance 7, which is related to migration of students, was amended and a complete ban was imposed with respect to intra and inter university migration.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said prima facie, a complete ban on migration was put in place on account of the recommendations of university’s expert committee which did not seem to be arbitrary or illegal.
The court, however, said the competent authority cannot be oblivious to the ground realities which may arise and this appears to be a case where a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted instead of being rigid to the general rule.
“The universities endowed with statutory discretion may legitimately adopt general rules or principles to guide itself as to the manner of exercising its own discretion in extraordinary circumstances. The universities should not be rigid while taking decisions in the cases where cogent reasons are given by the students for seeking migration,” it said.
The high court said students deserve quality higher education, and being devoid of that due to medical ailments beyond their control, will tantamount to doing “disservice to the future of this country”.
“It is incumbent upon educational institutions to make the necessary allowances to ensure that students, who are disadvantaged due to medical reasons, are also provided quality education. Therefore, the Ordinance of the universities for self-regulation cannot override a student’s right to education and the right to live a life with human dignity,” the court said.
It said the universities should consider extraordinary circumstances of the students and their application if there exist valid and justifiable reasons. Else, the exercise of discretionary power would stand vitiated for unreasonableness and arbitrariness, the court said.
The court directed the vice chancellor of GGSIPU to make a decision within six weeks and disposed of the plea.
If the vice chancellor comes to a conclusion that the grievance of both the petitioners was genuine and their request was acceptable, the same be accepted without being influenced by last year’s notification, it said.
Denial of responsibility! Todays Chronic is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – todayschronic.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.