Delhi High Court reinstates Delhi University law student dismissed for attendance shortfall due to medical condition, citing university error in uniform treatment. Division Bench overturns single-judge decision, acknowledging genuine reasons behind attendance challenges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has allowed the re-admission of a Delhi University (DU) law student who was previously dismissed due to attendance shortage caused by a medical condition. The student, suffering from psoriasis, was initially told by the university to reapply for the course by retaking the entrance exam, which he challenged through a writ petition.
The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal overturned the single-judge decision that had rejected the student’s petition. The court found that the university had made an error in treating all attendance shortages uniformly, without considering the genuine reasons behind some students’ inability to meet the attendance criteria.
Background:
The student, battling psoriasis, could not attend the requisite number of classes and thus fell short of the university’s stringent attendance requirements. Despite presenting his medical condition, the university maintained that he would need to start the course afresh, including retaking the entrance exam.
Feeling aggrieved, the student filed a writ petition against the university’s decision, which was initially dismissed by a single-judge. However, the Division Bench took a different view on the matter.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher noted-
“The university erroneously grouped together students who legitimately couldn’t meet attendance requirements with those who skipped classes without justification.”
The bench further elaborated that the university’s approach of requiring all students who failed to meet the attendance norm in the first term to reapply was too rigid.
“The university applied a blanket policy to all students without delving into the reasons behind their absences.”
– observed the court.
ALSO READ: [Punjab Judicial Service] Supreme Court Rejects Re-Evaluation Request for Mains Exam
The university’s counsel argued that maintaining a strict attendance policy is essential to ensure that students are committed and do not misuse the system. They stressed that students who fail to meet the attendance criteria, regardless of the reasons, should go through the admission process again.
However, the court found this stance untenable.
“Institutions must exercise discretion rather than implementing a one-size-fits-all approach, especially when dealing with genuine medical issues.”
-stated Justice Amit Bansal.
The bench also highlighted the importance of empathy and flexibility in educational administration, particularly when students face health challenges. The court pointed out that rigid policies could discourage students from pursuing their education under adverse conditions.
This judgment sets a significant precedent for educational institutions, emphasizing the need to distinguish between students who miss classes due to genuine reasons and those who do so without valid justification. It underscores the necessity for universities to adopt a more nuanced and compassionate approach towards attendance policies.
The decision is likely to impact future cases involving attendance shortages due to medical conditions, urging institutions to reconsider rigid policies that do not account for individual circumstances.
The court criticized the “one size fits all” approach taken by the university, noting that it failed to consider the serious nature of the student’s condition.
“It’s clear the university has adopted a one-size-fits-all approach.”
-the Court remarked, highlighting a systemic rigidity in handling cases of student absenteeism due to health issues.
Furthermore, the Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier intervened, stating in its affidavit that once a student is granted admission to pursue legal education, their admission should not be canceled for failing to meet attendance requirements if there are genuine reasons for their absence. This statement by the BCI reinforces the principle of non-discrimination against students with health challenges.
The university had argued that the student’s condition, psoriasis, was non-contagious and did not inhibit day-to-day activities. However, the court found this to be a trivialization of the student’s serious health issues. Psoriasis, though not contagious, can severely affect vital organs and even lead to death.
“Psoriasis, being a skin condition often with severe manifestations, can cause significant embarrassment and discomfort due to itching.”
– the court observed, acknowledging the substantial physical and psychological impacts of the disease.
Adding to the student’s defense, the court criticized the university’s skepticism towards the student’s choice of homeopathic treatment.
“It’s common knowledge that certain types of skin ailments respond well to homeopathic treatment, offering relief to many patients. Notably, the university failed to investigate whether the student’s claim of being unable to attend classes due to psoriasis was valid.”
-the court noted.
Contrary to the university’s claim of lacking authority to grant re-admission to a student detained in the first term for poor attendance, the court referred to the University Ordinance which supports re-admission under specific circumstances.
“A student previously barred from exams due to attendance shortfall will be readmitted to the same class within the specified registration period.”
-the ordinance states, clarifying the university’s obligations.
ALSO READ: NEET-UG 2024 Paper Leak | Medical Aspirants Move Supreme Court Seeking NEET-UG Re-exam
Ultimately, the court quashed the single-judge decision that had gone against the student and ordered his re-admission for the next academic year (2024-2027), setting a precedent on the flexibility required in academic regulations, especially concerning students with chronic illnesses.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, serving as Amicus Curiae, represented the appellant along with Advocates Harshil Wason and Dushyant Kaul. On the other side, Advocates Mohinder JS Rupal and Hardik Rupal represented Delhi University.
