Case of Re-admission: University of Delhi vs. The Student

In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, the case of re-admission between the University of Delhi and the student has been decided. The court’s decision addresses the cancellation of admission for first-term students due to attendance shortfall without investigating underlying reasons. Stay tuned for more insights on this important legal battle.


  • The University filed an affidavit on 10.11.2023 listing 58 students detained in the first term for the 2022-25 batch.
  • Mr. Rupal produced a document showing the appellant attended only 17% of classes.
  • Applicant filed an appeal on 10.10.2023 after the University suggested applying for readmission.
  • The University was directed to provide reasons for detaining other students on 06.11.2023.
  • Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV regarding readmission was discussed in the context of the appellant’s case.
  • The appellant’s request to take the first term exam did not materialize.
  • The SC amended readmission rules through a resolution despite Ordinance IV covering readmission aspects.
  • The University published a detention list on 15.05.2023, barring students from exams.
  • The appellant’s admission was canceled due to low attendance without written communication.
  • The appellant recovered from an illness and produced a medical certificate to resume studies.
  • The Court made a decision before Article 5(b) was included in Ordinance IV.9.8.
  • BCI has made adjustments based on the Court’s feedback in the Abhishek Singh case.
  • The University, however, has not addressed the situation even though it has the authority under Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV.10.


  • The issue to be considered is the cancellation of admission for first-term students due to attendance shortfall without investigating reasons for absence.
  • The key question is whether the appellant, who was not allowed to sit for exams due to attendance shortage caused by illness, should be required to seek readmission.


  • The appellant was absent for three (03) months.
  • The appellant’s submission is that his absence was due to reasons beyond his control due to psoriasis.
  • The Bar Council of India (BCI) stated that in rare circumstances, if a student is eligible but fails to meet attendance requirements, their admission should not be cancelled.
  • The University’s stand is that students with attendance below the threshold must seek readmission, regardless of the reason for absence.
  • The appellant seeks re-admission without retaking the entrance exam, citing unique circumstances.
  • The University has been implementing a one size fits all approach.
  • The challenge to the no readmission rule in Ordinance V was already rejected in the Samadhiya case.
  • The appellant is not seeking promotion without meeting the University’s minimum class attendance requirements.


  • The judgment discusses the conflict between the provisions in the Prospectus and Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV regarding readmission of students detained due to attendance shortage.
  • Article 5(b) in Ordinance IV explicitly allows for the readmission of students detained due to attendance shortage after failing to appear for examinations.
  • The judgement points out that the provision for readmission in Appendix II to Ordinance V, relied upon by the University, was superseded by the insertion of Article 5(b) in Ordinance IV.
  • It emphasizes that the provisions in the Prospectus must align with the regulations in the Ordinances, Statutes, and the DU Act to be binding on students seeking admission.
  • The legal analysis highlights the importance of distinguishing between students who are genuinely diligent but face difficult circumstances like illness, and those who are indolent.
  • The Visitor has the power to direct suspension of operation of any pending ordinance.
  • The Visitor’s opportunity to exercise his power ceases to have effect after one month from the date of the ordinance or its expiration by the court, whichever is later.
  • In the Abhishek Singh case, the court observed that relief could be granted to meritorious candidates with medical ailments by directing admission in the next academic year.
  • The power of readmission for students not meeting attendance criteria is vested in the University by Ordinance IV.
  • Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV supersedes the AC amendment to Ordinance V, section 28.2.
  • Regulation 7 of Ordinance VII does not address situations where students face medical challenges affecting attendance and promotion.
  • The current attendance requirement under Regulation 7 may not consider serious cases where students are genuinely unable to attend due to medical reasons.
  • The concern is that students with even no pass or attendance in certain terms can be promoted while those genuinely affected by medical conditions are bound by strict attendance rules.
  • In situations like serious infections or injuries limiting attendance, the administration should have the flexibility to support continued studies.
  • The insistence on minimum attendance as per Regulation 7 may not align with real-life scenarios like students with serious infections like HIV insisting on attending classes.
  • The BCI is deliberating on issues related to students’ readmission due to genuine reasons such as illness
  • University has the power to allow students to continue education if interrupted by genuine medical ailments beyond their control
  • University’s error in treating all cases of attendance shortfall equally
  • Single Judge dismissed writ action based on previous judgment without considering reasons for attendance shortfall


  • In the present case, the University is directed to re-admit the appellant with the batch of 2024-2027 students, starting in August 2024.
  • The re-admission is to be done by making suitable adjustments as suggested by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
  • The decision of the single judge is set aside due to the reasons mentioned.
  • The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.


Case Number: LPA-703/2023

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *