Delhi High Court allows re-admission of DU law student who failed first term on account of attendance shortage

The Delhi High Court recently allowed the re-admission of a Delhi University law student who failed the first term of his course on account of attendance shortage due to a medical condition..The student, who had fallen short of attendance as he suffering with psoriasis, was told by the University to apply for the course afresh by re-taking the entrance exam.Challenging the University's decision, the student filed a writ petition, which was rejected by a single-judge..However, a Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal observed that the University had made the mistake of "conflating the fate of students who, for genuine reasons, fail to meet the attendance criteria with those who play truant without explanation"..The University had argued that if students do not meet the prescribed attendance norm in the first term, they would have to seek admission afresh, irrespective of the reasons for their absence.The Court rejected this stance by saying that the University had adopted a uniform approach for all students without investigating the reasons for their absence."It is evident that the University has adopted an approach best described as one size fits all," the Court remarked.It also took note of the fact that the Bar Council of India (BCI) said in its affidavit that once a student is granted admission to pursue legal education, their admission should not be cancelled if they fail to meet the attendance requirement for genuine reasons..The University also contended that the disease which the student was suffering from was a non-contagious one, and did not prevent him from carrying on their day-to-day activities.The Court, on the contrary, found that psoriasis, while not contagious, is a serious disease that can affect vital organs and cause death. "Since psoriasis is a skin disease which often takes grotesque forms, it can result in deep embarrassment for the afflicted person. A perusal of photographs that the appellant has placed on record shows that a large part of his body was infected. Thus, it would be unwise for anyone to underplay the seriousness of the disease, or the discomfort that it can cause to an afflicted person. Itching is a peculiar feature of the disease, which can lead to extreme discomfort."The Court noted that the University had trivialized the appellant's condition by questioning his choice of a homeopathic doctor and had shown disbelief in his illness claim."One can take judicial notice of the fact that for certain kinds of skin diseases, homoeopathic medicine works and has brought relief to several patients. What is significant is that the University did not conduct any enquiry as to whether the appellant’s assertion that he was unable to attend his classes because of being afflicted with psoriasis was correct.".The University also contended that it lacked the power to grant re-admission to a student who had been detained in the first term.After going through relevant provisions of the University Ordinance, the Court rejected this contention and called it misconceived. It said that the University could re-admit students who had genuine reasons for absence, including illness under Article 5(b) to Ordinance IV. That provision stated:"A student of the University who was not allowed to appear in the examinations due to shortage of attendance will be re-admitted to the class he studied last in his College/Department, within the prescribed period of registration.”.Based on these findings, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the single-judge decision. It also directed the University to re-admit the student for the next academic year (2024-2027 batch)..Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao (Amicus Curiae) with Advocates Harshil Wason and Dushyant Kaul appeared for the appellant.Advocates Mohinder JS Rupal and Hardik Rupal represented Delhi University..[Read Order]