Delhi High Court Affirms DU’s Centenary Exam Opportunities As Privileges, Not Rights

News
Typography
  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court (HC) has determined that the centenary chances offered by Delhi University (DU) to former students for reappearing in examinations they previously failed are not an entitlement. This clarification came following a report by PTI.

The court emphasized that DU's decision to grant these centenary opportunities, along with the specific conditions attached to them, are strictly academic policy matters. The HC noted that these opportunities are discretionary and not rights that students can claim. Justice C Hari Shankar highlighted that students who did not clear all their papers within the maximum allowed period do not possess any inherent right to request additional chances to pass. Similarly, DU is not obligated to provide such opportunities. These centenary chances were voluntary measures introduced by the university as part of its centenary celebrations, making them privileges rather than rights.

The court further elaborated that the terms under which these chances are offered fall solely within the university's jurisdiction. Additionally, there is no legal requirement for DU to offer a second chance for students to retake their failed papers.

The HC dismissed a petition that challenged the limitations imposed on the second centenary chance, ruling that the case did not warrant issuing a notice. The petitioner, a former student of the Campus Law Centre (CLC) who completed her Bachelor of Legislative Law (LLB) from 2009 to 2012, argued that the restriction of reattempting only four papers in the second centenary chance was unfair, as it left her with two papers still to clear.

The court defended DU's policy, stating that if the university chose to allow reattempts for all papers in the first centenary chance but limited the second chance to four papers, it was a legitimate exercise of the university’s discretion. The court observed that no substantial evidence of arbitrariness or invalidity of the policy was presented in the petition or during oral arguments. It was also mentioned that requiring academic bodies to justify every policy decision in court would undermine their autonomy and administrative freedom.

This ruling reaffirms the discretionary nature of DU’s centenary chances, highlighting the university's autonomy in making such academic policy decisions.