Staying the rustication of a student from a Delhi University certificate course, the Delhi High Court has held that the penalty was imposed without a show-cause notice or any opportunity of hearing, and has said that the manner in which the university’s Centre proceeded was, to say the least, dictatorial, after the student alleged that she was targeted for complaining about hygiene and food-safety lapses in the course kitchen.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has stayed an order of September 10, 2026 rusticating Priyanka Rawat from the Certificate Course in Bakery and Confectionery at the Centre of Innovative Skill Based Courses (CISBC) under the Open Learning Development Centre (OLDC) of the University of Delhi, and has permitted her to continue with the course till the next date of hearing [Priyanka Rawat v. University of Delhi and Others].
Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order on September 30, 2026 in W.P. (C) No. 13875 of 2026, issuing notice on the petition and directing the respondents to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.
Background of the case
The petitioner is enrolled in the six-month course at the CISBC. She alleges that she raised complaints about serious hygiene and food-safety concerns, including a corroded oven, unclean equipment and the use of expired raw materials, and that, after an inspection on August 19, 2026, she was identified as the complainant. According to the petition, on September 10, 2026 respondents 2 and 3 rusticated her with immediate effect without issuing any show-cause notice or giving her a hearing.
Her representations of September 12 and 15, 2026 seeking recall of the order drew no response. She has sought quashing of the rustication order and reinstatement in the course in a safe, hygienic and non-discriminatory environment. The hygiene allegations are the petitioner’s and the Court has not examined them.
Respondents’ stand
Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 told the Court that he did not wish to file a counter affidavit, agreed that the procedure had not been followed, and stated that the respondents will follow due process and hold a de novo inquiry.
‘Dictatorial’ exercise of power
The Court noted that the impugned order records findings on the petitioner’s alleged loud, rude and disrespectful behaviour, among other allegations, without her having been put to notice or called upon to explain her conduct before she was rusticated. It held:
“The manner in which the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have proceeded is, to say the least, dictatorial.”
The Court said that a prior hearing is not a mere formality where a serious disciplinary penalty is imposed on a student, and that the rule of audi alteram partem requires that the person facing adverse action be informed of the substance of the allegations and given a meaningful opportunity to respond before the decision is taken. It relied on its decision in Bhim Raj v.
South Asian University, which held that expelling a student first and inviting a response afterwards presents the student with a fait accompli. It concluded that, where rustication is proposed, the hearing must precede the decision and cannot ordinarily be replaced by an opportunity given after the adverse order has been passed.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Slams JNU for Expelling Student Over Objectionable Videos
Institutional autonomy has limits
While recognising that an educational institution is entitled, and indeed obliged, to maintain discipline on its campus and act where misconduct is established, the Court stated:
“However, institutional autonomy does not confer an unfettered or arbitrary power upon the institution. The power to discipline must necessarily be exercised within the confines of law and fair procedure.”
The Court observed that it was difficult to understand how an academic institution, which is expected to inculcate discipline, fairness and respect for the rule of law in its students, could itself impose the harshest disciplinary consequence without following elementary principles of natural justice.
Interim order
The Court stayed the September 10 order till the next date of hearing and permitted the petitioner to continue her course. It also said that a counter affidavit was required to ascertain the understanding and basis on which respondents 2 and 3 took the action, directed that it be filed within four weeks, and listed the matter on January 13, 2027.
Why The Rustication Order Matters
The order reaffirms that a student cannot be rusticated before being told the allegations and heard, and that a hearing after the penalty is no substitute. The findings are prima facie and made at the interim stage. The university’s Centre has said that it will hold a fresh inquiry, and the Court has not ruled on the petitioner’s allegations about hygiene or on whether any misconduct was committed.
Case Title: Priyanka Rawat v. University of Delhi and Others [W.P. (C) No. 13875 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 30, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Karan Nambiar, Kneev Raizada and Pranav Gadu for the petitioner; Advocate Mohinder J. S. Rupal for respondents 2 and 3; Advocate Pratap Singh for respondent no. 1