The Delhi High Court has ruled that Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) cannot cancel a student’s PhD candidature on the grounds of not having a designated supervisor. This judgment came to light during the reinstatement of Nazar Mohammad Mohaideen S as a PhD scholar at JNU’s Special Centre for Molecular Medicine (SCMM), marking a significant moment for academic governance and student rights within the university.
The court’s ruling was based on the premise that the responsibility of assigning a PhD supervisor falls squarely on the university’s shoulders, specifically on the Committee for Advance Studies and Research (CASR) or the equivalent department within JNU.
“The JNU could not, therefore, have called upon the petitioner (a PhD candidate) to find a supervisor for himself. The task of finding a supervisor for a Ph.D. scholar is unequivocally cast, by the JNU’s own Ordinance 6.1, on the Committee for Advance Studies and Research (CASR), or the equivalent department in the JNU. The request, in the communication dated 18 May 2023, to the petitioner, to obtain a written consent from his prospective supervisor was, therefore, ex facie without jurisdiction or authority,”
the Court elucidated.
This case stemmed from a dispute between Mohaideen and his initial supervisor, Professor Shailja Singh, who raised concerns about Mohaideen’s conduct, including visiting the lab at late hours with strangers, posing a security threat, and his irregular attendance and insincerity towards assigned work. Following these allegations, Professor Singh declared her unwillingness to continue supervising Mohaideen’s PhD, leading to JNU’s decision to discontinue his candidature. On October 4, 2023, JNU communicated to Mohaideen that due to the unavailability of another supervisor, he could not continue as a scholar at the SCMM.
The Delhi High Court’s intervention in this matter underscores the critical role of universities in ensuring the academic progression of their students, particularly at the PhD level. By highlighting the procedural lapses in JNU’s handling of Mohaideen’s supervision issue, the Court has set a precedent that emphasizes the institutional responsibilities over individual efforts in academic supervision.
This ruling not only reinstates Mohaideen as a PhD scholar but also serves as a reminder to academic institutions of their duties and the importance of adhering to their own ordinances and regulations. It reaffirms the principle that the academic journey of PhD candidates should not be hindered by administrative or procedural oversights, ensuring that higher education remains a collaborative effort between students and their universities.
