Recently, the Delhi High Court stepped in to examine whether a law student who neither attended classes nor appeared in examinations for an entire semester could still seek promotion to the next semester on grounds of academic continuity. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia scrutinised the limits of judicial intervention in university academic decisions while considering whether cases of complete absence from classes could be equated with mere shortage of attendance.
The controversy began when an LL.B. student of Delhi University challenged the refusal to grant him direct admission to Semester-IV. The student had earlier been detained in Semester-II because of a shortage of attendance, though he was provisionally permitted to appear in Semester-II examinations pending the outcome of proceedings before a university committee. However, his result was withheld, and he was denied admission to Semester-III, due to which he neither attended Semester-III classes nor appeared in its examinations.
The Counsel for the Appellant argued that he had already cleared all papers in Semester-I and had appeared in Semester-II examinations with the university’s permission, and therefore should have been permitted to continue academic progression. It was further argued that similarly placed students had earlier been allowed to continue studies despite irregularities relating to attendance and examinations.
The Court observed that there was a clear distinction between shortage of attendance and nil attendance. The Bench emphasised that students who had not attended even a single class in a semester could not seek parity with students who merely fell short of the prescribed attendance requirement. The Court held, “Students, who have neither attended even a single class in a particular semester nor appeared in the examinations for that semester, cannot claim the benefit of progression to the next semester.”
The Court further noted that the appellant had not approached the Court while Semester-III was ongoing and instead sought relief only after Semester-IV had commenced. Holding that a student cannot bypass an entire semester without attending classes, the Bench declined to interfere with the earlier decision refusing admission to Semester-IV.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Aman Bansal Vs. University of Delhi & Ors.
Case No.: CM APPL. 32614/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Gaurav Arya, Adv. Harsh Goyal, Adv. Naveen Bamel, Adv. Yuvraj, Adv. Aakarshak Rathi, Adv. Manav Trivedi
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Preet Pal Singh, Adv. Tanupreet Kaur, Adv. Gaurav, Adv. Simran Kumari, Adv. Pooja, Adv. Medha Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
