78 Students Move MP High Court Challenging Dharmashastra NLU's Decision To Charge Excessive Fee For 'Remedial' Classes

78 students of Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur have moved to the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) challenging the decision of the University Administration to charge them 7500/- per subject for remedial classes for becoming eligible to write the term-end examination.

It is their plea that since they have already been debarred from writing the term-end examination, how can they be asked to pay 7500/- per subject in the name of remedial classes so as to become eligible to write the term-end examination?

The students have argued that as per earlier rules of the university, if students who are debarred due to short attendance, they were allowed for re-examination after payment of Rupees 500, however, this has been increased many folds (Almost 1500%) to 7500 rupees per subject.

The petitioners have also alleged that the University administration had failed to conduct a mandatory number of lectures as mandated by BCI, i.e., 24 lecture hours per week (excluding tutorials, moot room exercises, and seminars) for not less than 18 weeks, which totals to 432 hours of lectures.

The plea claims that only 21 hours of lectures have been conducted per week and as per the academic calendar for the session 2021-22, the total number of operating weeks is 13, which when multiplied by 21 gives to a total of 273 hours of the lecture, which is 159 hours less than the mandate of the BCI.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioners were debarred due to a shortage of attendance and were disallowed to appear for the Term End Examination. Later on, they were given the chance to appear for the remedial classes so that they may get a chance to fulfill the minimum attendance requirement and become eligible to appear for re-examination

However, for the purpose of conducting remedial classes, the petitioners were asked to pay ₹ 7500/- for each subject (in which the Petitioners had a shortage of attendance), failing which, it was informed, the Petitioners would not be allowed to attend the remedial classes.

The affected students moved a representation before the University Administration against the excessive fee being charged for the remedial classes, consequently, the administration issued a notice that they can reduce the fee from Rs. 7500/- per subject to ₹5,000/- per subject.

However, being dissatisfied with the fee being charged for the remedial classes, the petitioners preferred the plea before the High Court through advocate Varun Tankha contending that the imposition of a fee of ₹ 7500/- per subject is highly detrimental to the idea of imparting quality education.

It is the primary contention of the petitioners that when they have been debarred one time from appearing for term-end examination due to a shortage of attendance for the academic year 2021-22, how can they be asked to attend the remedial classes after paying ₹ 7500/- per subject in order to attain 75% attendance in the concerned subject and to become eligible to appear for re-exam. 

It has been averred in the plea that the University Administration had not intimated any such kind of fee to be levied on the debarred students in the name of remedial classes at the starting or during the course of academic session 2021-22 and has only issued it after the academic session of 2021-22 has ended.

The plea also states that the University Administration acted in a very arbitrary manner as it accepted the medical certificates furnished by some of the petitioners and then in a very suspicious manner, rejected them, when the term-end examination had already been commenced.

Against this backdrop, the Plea avers that the Univeristy administration is simply trying to fill its pocket under the garb of remedial classes and intentionally trying to harass the instant petitioners by compelling them to attend remedial classes in order to attain the required percentage of attendance despite of the fact, that the petitioners have already been penalized by not giving their term end examination in the normal course for the academic session 2021-22.

In view of the averments made in the plea, the plea prays for the following reliefs :

* Directing the University Administration to allow the petitioners to appear for a re-exam after paying the nominal examination process fee.

* Directing the University Administration to treat the re-exam as Term End Examination as Respondent No. 2 had failed miserably to deliver the required number of lectures in a concerned semester.