S.N. Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 240 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. "Law school has been described as a place for the accumulation of learning. First year students bring some in; third year students take none away. Hence it accumulates." Said Daniel R. White. If the present state of affairs continue in University of Delhi, this may well be the epitaph of the Faculty of Law.

2. The petitioner is a Professor of Law in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. At the time of filing of the writ petition petitioner was Head of Law Centre-2 and was functioning as Professor-in-charge.

3. Being in the field of legal education, petitioner expressed his concern at the fast declining standards of legal education in the University of Delhi; in particular the falling standards of discipline amongst the standards.

4. Prayers made in the writ petition are as under:-

"a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to promote only those students of LL.B. First year who have passed five papers and those students of LL.B. Second year who have passed fifteen papers as prescribed under the University Ordinances and rules:

b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition restraining the respondent No. 1 from promoting any student of LL.B. First and Second year course contrary to Delhi University Ordinances and rules:

c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Ordinance X-C framed by Respondent No. 1 which confers arbitrary, uncanalised and discriminatory powers on the Academic Council to relax the statutory provisions of the Ordinances.

d) Issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition restraining Respondent No. 1 from passing any order for relaxation/exemption from 2/3rds attendance at lectures as prescribed by the Bar Council of India and a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the attendance rules of the University of Delhi which are inconsistent with the Bar Council of India rules framed on the subject.

e) Issue directions for calling the records of all applications received from the students of LL.B. seeking relaxation from the promotion rules and the records of the Academic Council and Standing Committee (Students for the last three years with regard to the relaxation of the promotion rules.

f) Issue necessary directions to the Bar Council of India to prescribe minimum number of lectures in every course which should be delivered for the students out of which the students must attend at least two-thirds of the lectures delivered."

5. University of Delhi was constituted under the "Delhi University Act, 1922". The University was created to provide for instruction in such branches of learning as the University may think fit and to make provisions for, amongst others, advancement and dissemination of knowledge. To achieve this object, the University was empowered to hold examinations and to confer degrees on persons, who had pursued a course of study in the University or in any college under the University.

6. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:-

4. The University shall have the following powers, namely:

(1) to provide for instruction in such branches of learning as the University may think fit, and to make provision for research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge,

(2) to hold examinations and to grant to, and confer degrees and other academic distinctions on, persons who -

(a) have pursued a course of study in the University or in any College, or

(b) ........................

(c) ........................

(d) ........................

(e) ........................"

7. Section 7 of the Act reads as under:-

"7. (1) All recognised teaching in connection with the University courses shall be conducted under the control of the Academic Council by teachers of the University, and shall include lecturing, laboratory work and other teaching conducted in accordance with any syllabus prescribed by the Regulations.

(2) Omitted.

(3) The authorities responsible for organising such teaching shall be prescribed by the Statutes.

(4) The courses and curricula shall be prescribed by the Ordinances and, subject thereto, by the Regulations.

(5) Omitted."

8. Section 23 of the Acts reads as under:-

"23. The Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, have the control and general regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University, and shall exercise such other, powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters. The constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members, other than ex-officio members, shall be prescribed by the Statutes."

9. Section 17 of the Act reads as under:-

"The following shall be the Authorities of the University:

(i) The Court,

(ii) The Executive Council,

(iii) The Academic Council,

(iii-a) The Finance Committee,

(iv) The faculties and

(v) such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes to be authorities of the University."

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, the following position emerges:-

(i) The University is to confer degrees on persons, who have pursued a course of study in the University;

(ii) Teaching in connection with courses is to be conducted under the control of the Academic Council;

(iii) Academic Council is one of the authorities of the University;

(iv) The Academic Council is the academic body of the University and subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and Ordinances framed there under, has the control, general regulations and is responsible for the maintenance of standards of education, instruction of education and examination within the University.

11. The Statutes of the University provide for the Constitution of the various bodies and authorities of the University and deals with the power which the said authorities and committees may exercise. Statute 11 stipulates as under:-

"11. Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, any Authority of the University may, from time to time, appoint such and so many Standing committees or Sub-Committees or Boards as it may deem fit and may, if it deems fit, appoint to them persons who are not members of such Authority. Such Committees and Boards may deal with any subject delegated to them, subject to subsequent confirmation by the Authority appointing them."

12. The Ordinances of the University deal with the matters pertaining to admission to the University, transfer of students from one course to the other, migration of students, the courses of study, conditions for admission to examination, conduct of examination, classification of results of examination, general rules for examination, appointment of teaching staff in the University and the various faculties under the University.

13. Conditions for admission to examinations are regulated by Ordinance 7. Clause 8 of Ordinance 7 deals with LL.B. Degree Examination. Same reads as under:-

"(8) (a) In the case of students studying for the LL.B. Degree Examination, no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he has attended at least two-thirds of the total number of lectures delivered in each year including tutorials, seminars and discussion classes held during the academic year in which he has been admitted as a regular student of the Faculty:

Provided, however, that the Dean, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit a student of the 2nd or the 4th Term to take the examination if he is short by not more than 10% of the total number of lectures delivered including tutorials, seminars and discussion classes held during the 1st or the 2nd year of the course, as the case may be. Such a student shall have to make up the deficiency in attendance of the previous year in the next following year in which he is admitted failing which he shall not be deemed to have fulfillled the attendance requirements of the year:

Provided further that in cases of students who are not admitted at the time of the commencement of the courses due to non-clearance of the required courses and are admitted late after the declaration of the results of the Supplementary examinations, the attendance shall count from the date of declaration of the supplementary examinations results."

14. Ordinance X-C vests the Academic Council with certain permissive powers. It reads as under:-

"Ord. X-C. Permissive Provisions

The Academic Council may, in exceptional cases grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinances governing admission of students, migration, the courses to be pursued by them, attendance at lectures or sessional or other work or the examination of candidates and authorise what is proper to be done instead in such cases, provided that no such exemption and authority shall be deemed to have been granted unless not less than two-thirds of the members present of the Academic Council voted in favor of the motion for such exemption and authority made by, or with the written authority of the Vice-Chancellor; and

Provided further that this two-thirds majority voting for the exemption should not be less than half the total strength of the Academic Council at the time."

15. Focusing on the issue pertaining to conduct of examinations in the LL.B. Degree Course, the position which emerges from the aforesaid provisions is as under:-

"(1) No student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he has attended at least two-thirds of the total number of lectures delivered.

(2) The Dean is empowered, after recording reasons in writing, to permit student of Second or Forth Term to take the examination, if he/she is short by not more than 10% of the total numbers of lectures delivered. However, such student has to make up the deficiency in attendance of the previous year in the next following year.

(3) Students not admitted at the time of commencement of the courses due to non-clearance of the required course, but are admitted late after the declaration of results of supplementary examination attendance is to be counted from the date of declaration of the supplementary examination result. (We may note that this provision is no longer applicable, as the University has stopped conducting supplementary examination)

(4) Beyond the power of relaxation conferred upon the Dean the Academic Council, in exceptional cases, is empowered to grant examination from the operation of the Ordinances governing amongst others, attendance at lectures.

(5) Power under Ordinance X-C is to be exercised by the Academic Council by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its members.

16. A Bachelor of Law course extends over a period of three academic years. Each academic year consist of two terms. Thus the LL.B. Course consists of six terms. In each term a student has to opt for five papers. An examination is conducted at the end of each terms.

17. Promotions are not affected term-wise but year-wise. The Promotion Rules reads as under:-

Promotion Rules :

A student of the First, Third and Fifth Term will be promoted to the Second, Fourth and Sixth Term respectively, irrespective of the number of courses in which he/she has failed to pass or failed to appear in the First, Third or Fifth Term Examinations as the case may be : Provided, however that no such student shall be admitted to the Third or the Fifth Term unless he/she has passed in at least five courses offered by him for the First and Second Term Examinations taken together in case of promotion from I year to II year and in at least fifteen courses offered by him for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Term Examinations taken together in case of promotion from II year to III year of the LL.B. Course.

Note:- The student eligible for admission to III/V Term must seek admission not later than two weeks from the date(s) of announcement of the results of LL.B. II/IV Term Annual Examinations failing which they will forefeit their right to be admitted to III/V Term."

18. A perusal of the Promotion Rules bring out that to be admitted to the Third Term, a student must have passed at least 5 courses offered by him in the First and Second Term Examination taken together, and in the matter of promotion to the 5th Term, the student must have passed at least 15 courses taken by him for the First, Second, Third and Forth Term taken together. Further, the eligible student must take admission in the Third or the Fifth Term not later than two weeks from the date of announcement of the Second and Forth Term results, failing which the right to be admitted to the Third or Fifth Term would be forfeited.

19. The ordinances and promotion rules framed by the University, pertaining to LL.B. Course thus stipulate twin conditions for promotion to the Third and the Fifth Term. There is first a condition of minimum attendance of 66% (relaxable under the Rules by the Dean as noted above), and the Second condition of clearance on 5 or 15 papers for promotion to the Third and Fifth respectively.

20. The issue of falling standards of professional law courses had been a subject matter of concern to all in the past. The Bar Council of India, was concerned with this issue and framed rules for grant of recognition of degree in law courses by the Bar Council of India. Bar Council of India is a statutory authority constituted under the Advocates Act 1961. The Bar Council of India framed rules on this subject matter. Rule 3 mandated that a student undergoing LL.B. Course would be required to put in minimum of attendant of 66% each year in each subject. By way of proviso, in exceptional cases, the Dean of the Faculty of Law or the Principal of Law College was empowered to condone shortage of attendance, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate. Rule 3 framed by the Bar Council of India reads as follows:-

"3. The students shall be required to put in a minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course:

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law and the Principal of Law Colleges may condone attendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student has attendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be."

21. As noted above under Statute 11, the Academic Council is competent to appoint further "Standing Committees" or "Sub Committees". Such "Standing Committees" or "Sub Committees" can be delegated such powers and functions of the Academic Council as the Academic Council decides.

22. In exercise of this power conferred by Statute 11 the Academic Council has constituted the "Standing Committee (Students)", to which powers of the Council under Ordinance X-C have been delegated.

23. Since the Academic Council is empowered under Ordinance X-C to grant exemption to students from the operation of any of the ordinances, the Standing Committee (Students) has from time to time been taking decisions relaxing the eligibility conditions for promotion to law students.

24. The University of Delhi appears to be conscious of the fact that for promotion to the third and fifth semester as such enough relaxation is already provided under the Promotion Rules qua the clearance of papers opted by the students in the first four semesters. This issue whether relaxation should be granted, was referred to a Committee headed by Mr. Justice V.S. Deshpande (as his Lordship then was). This Committee was constituted on 22.12.1986. It submitted its report. In the meeting of the Academic Committee held on 7.1.1989 this report was considered. The unanimous recommendation of Justice V.S. Deshpande Committee was that no student should be allowed to carry over the load more than one semester to the next semester. It was further unanimously recommended by the Committee that under the promotion rules, under no circumstances relaxation should be given in this respect.

25. The Academic Council accepted the report and thereby decided that as far as the LL.B. Degree Course was concerned, no relaxation would be given in the Promotion Rules i.e. clearance of 5 and 15 papers respectively for students to be admitted to the third and Fifth Term respectively, was not to be relaxed.

26. Submissions of the petitioner is five fold:-

1. That the attendance rules of the University of Delhi pertaining to LL.B. Degree Course require to be brought in conformity with the attendance rules framed by the Bar Council of India.

2. That in any case, the power of relaxation provided under Ordinance X-C cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. It was stated that without any material on record and without any justifiable cause wholesome relaxation pertaining to attendance requirements was being given by the Standing Committee (Students). This was thus not only an abuse of power but suffered from the vice of arbitrariness as well.

3. The Promotion Rule mandating minimum clearance of 5 papers in the first two Terms could not be waived under any circumstances. Similarly, the requirement of clearance of 15 papers in the first four Terms could not be waived for promotion to Fifth Term.

4. In any case, this power of relaxation, if at all was available was to be exercised with application of mind and instances show that as in the case of enmas waiver of attendance rules, the Standing Committee (Students) was waiving this condition in favor of all and sundry.

5. That Academic Council being itself a delegatee could not further delegate its power under Ordinance X-C. Thus, the very constitution of the Standing Committee (Students) was bad in law.

27. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the first four submissions noted by us above. A law course cannot be acquitted with a normal academic course. Attendance of lectures, tutorials and seminars is very essential to train the law students. Under the Advocates Act 1961, the Bar Council of India has been empowered, amongst others, "to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education". The Bar Council of India has framed statutory rules which bind all institutions conferring LL.B. Degree Course which are recognised by the Bar Council of India. Section 4 of the Delhi University Act 1922 empowers the University to confer degrees of students who have pursued a course of study in the University or in any college attached or affiliated to the University. No student can be deemed to have pursued a course of study who does not comply with the various requirements prescribed under the Act, Statute, Ordinances or Rules framed by the Academic Council. Needless to state that the Academic Council is the Supreme Academic Body of the University. Clause 8 of Ordinance 7 clearly provides that no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he has attended at least two-thirds of the total number of lectures delivered in each year. The proviso permits relaxation of shortage of attendance up to 10%. Thus, as per the attendance norms prescribed under the Ordinances, pertaining to LL.B. Degree Course, shortage of attendance beyond 10% is not permissible. However, the Academic Council in exceptional cases is empowered to grant a further relaxation. The examination Rule framed by the Bar Council of India also provides for relaxation, but makes a different provision for relaxation. The Bar Council of India Rule requires 66% attendance in each paper and empowers relaxation in a particular paper, provided however total attendance in all the papers is 66%. The Academic Council decision to accept the Justice V.S. Deshpande Committee recommendation is thus a resolution limiting the exercise of power of relaxation unanimously adopted by the Academic Council. The Academic Council would thus be bound by its own resolution. The decision not to grant relaxation was a conscious decision taken for which even a high powered Committee was constituted and was taken in the interest of legal education.

28. Since the Bar Council of India recognises the LL.B. Degree Course of the University of Delhi and the Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act 1961 and is empowered to lay down standards of legal education, University of Delhi would be required to bring its rules in conformity with the rules of the Bar Council of India.

29. The respondent No. 1 is thus issued a direction to amend its examination and promotion Rules in the matter pertaining to attendance to bring them in conformity with the corresponding rules framed by the Bar Council of India.

30. In view of the acceptance of the Justice V.S. Deshpande Committee's recommendation that norms of clearing 5 and 15 papers up to the 2nd and 4th semester should not be waived, a direction is liable to be issued to the respondent No. 1 to comply with the Resolution dated 7.1.1989 passed by the Academic Council not to waive the said norm.

31. The issue arises as to what should be done for the present academic year. A dismal picture has been reflected before us. All students who have cleared only 4 out of 10 papers in the first and second semester have been recommended for promotion to third semester and all students who have cleared only 14 out of 20 papers in the first four semesters have been recommended for promotion to the fifth semester. Further, attendance rules have been relaxed without any limit. Students with as low attendance as 23% have been allowed to take the examination and these students who have cleared only four out of ten papers in the first two semester have been recommended for promotion. Students with as low as 32% attendance and having cleared only 14 out of 20 papers in the first four semesters have been recommended for promotion to the 5th semester. The reasons for relaxation of both the norms i.e. papers passed and attendance in the majority of cases is listed as "due to illness". In a few cases the reason is "due to some domestic family problem", "death in family", "due to some official burden", ":due to marriage", "due to depression" and "due to weak financial problem". What is shocking is that in some cases in the column of listed reason it is stated "reason not given". The petitioner had listed about 100 such cases, to which there is no denial. Records of the University shows that all those students who had cleared only 4 papers out of 10 in the first two semesters irrespective of what their attendance was, were recommended for admission to the third semester and similarly all students, who had passed 14 papers out of 20 up to the 4 semester, were recommended for admission to the 5th semester irrespective of the classes attended. We may note that in some of the cases the concerned students have more than 66% attendance.

32. In this factual matrix, contention raised by Mr. Jayant Bhushan counsel appearing for some of the students was, that in the past the University had been allowing promotion to the second and third year to all students who had cleared 4 or 14 papers respectively and had been relaxing the attendance norms, and this being the consistent past practice, the students had a legitimate expectation that this would be followed and applied by the University in the current session. He thus argued that at least for the present session, if the court comes to a conclusion that no relaxation can be given, the students should be allowed the benefit of the past conduct of the University. He further argued that the norm of clearance of papers was not mandated by the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and the Academic Council having the power under Ordinance X-C to grant relaxation, benefit thereof should be given to the students because the Standing Committee (Students) had already decided to relax the said norm. Thus, according to the learned counsel all those students who had 56% attendance (giving benefit of 10% relaxation, which could be granted by the Dean or Principal of the college), should not be disturbed. Qua the others learned counsel submitted that since in the past, the University had been waiving attendance rules without any outer limit of relaxation, in the interest of equity and justice this also should not be disturbed by the Court.

32. It is this argument which has disturbed us the most. By its past conduct, University has let lose chaos. Academic discipline has been ignored.

33. As noted by us above, there is a total non-application of mind while granting relaxation. Enmass relaxations have been granted without there being any justification in some of the cases. Even in cases where some kind of medical certificates are available on record (which were produced in Court under our directions) it is revealed that no exercise was carried out to determine the authenticity of the certificate. In fact what had happened was that since relaxation was being given to all and sundry, the Standing Committee (Students) did not even bother to address itself to the issue, whether the medical certificates were genuine or false. It did not consider it proper to consider the genuineness of other reasons cited. All were being put in one boat and the boat was set sail. All got the benefit of the larches of the Standing Committee (Students). We may give a few illustrations. Shashi Prakash Kanodia has only 34% attendance and has cleared only 14 papers. Reason for giving relaxation is stated to be "viral fever". His request for relaxing the attendance norm as also norm for clearing 15 papers was made on 21.8.2002. He produced two medical certificates issued by a private Doctor. Another student Kartik Srivastava, who had only 45% attendance, was given the benefit of relaxation. Reason cited for giving benefit of relaxation was "fever". This student sought relaxation by his application which is undated. He produced a medical certificate from a private Doctor, who surprisingly stated that Kartik Srivastava was suffering from fever and was advised rest from 12.7.2001 to 25.12.2001. An astounding period of over 41/2 months covering the entire semester was certified as the period of sickness of the patient. Another student Subodh Kumar Rai, who had only 38% attendance, produced a medical certificate showing fever for a period of only 17 days. He too was given the benefit, without appreciation that at best he was entitled to a relaxation for the classes held during 17 days period only. Pankaj Gupta who had only 45% attendance was given the benefit of relaxation and the reason given is "back ache". This student produced in August a medical certificate issued by a private Doctor certifying that he had a back ache in the month of April 2002. Arti Malik who had only 25% attendance was given relaxation on the basis of her application listing the reason as "due to depression as stated in the letter of the student". This student did not have any evidence to justify the aforesaid reason. There are many such instances and we need not elaborate all. Sufficient to record that not only was the authenticity of the certificate checked, there was even no appreciation of the fact whether the certificates justified the relaxation to the extent granted, assuming benefit under the certificates had to be given. There can be no legitimate expectation that the University will act in violation of its norms. No one can have a legitimate expectation that an academic body will go about relaxing norms without application of mind. The argument of Mr. Jayant Bhushan that doctrine of legitimate expectation is attracted is thus rejected.

34. By order dated 30.10.2002 promotion of students to the Second and Third year of LL.B. Course which was in contravention of the rules was stayed. Some of the students moved applications that the order should be vacated. It was alternatively contended that they be allowed to submit the examination forms for the ensuing exams. On 29.11.2002 the interim order dated 30.10.2002 was confirmed. However, the students were permitted to take the exams subject to the decision in the writ petition. We are informed that these students have taken the third and fifth Term examination.

35. We are now confronted with a situation where by throwing all norms to the wind, the University granted promotion to the second and third year to students who were not entitled to be promoted. However, the fact remains that these students were allowed to take the examinations under the orders of this court. They claim equity in their favor and in particular the loss of one academic year.

36. In matters pertaining to education no court can permit total violation of the norms. LL.B. Degree Course is expected to produce trained legal minds, ready to take on the challenges of the 21st Century. Decline in education norms in professional law courses was noted by the Supreme court as far back as 1989. In the judgment titled Baldev Raj Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India, it was observed that there is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candidate. It was observed that regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures, tutorials etc. has a purpose. Rules framed by the Bar Council of India were upheld. Whatever be the equities, we cannot permit a total violation of the norms. Promotion of all students who have cleared only 4 or 14 papers respectively to the third term and fifth term are thus quashed.

37. For future, directions contained above, namely, no relaxation would be given from the requirement of clearance of 5 or 15 papers as the case may be for promotion to the third and fifth term shall be adhered to by the University. Further, the attendance rules shall be amended by the University of Delhi and shall be brought in conformity with the attendance rules framed by the Bar Council of India. The permissible relaxation would be as per the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and manner of exercise shall be as so framed there under.

38. Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.