Educational Institutions Are Strong Pillars Of Democracy, Can't Be Machines Producing Individuals Chasing Marks Or Degrees: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that schools, universities and academic institutions are strong pillars of democracy as well as the entire country and are not meant to be machines producing individuals whose aim is only to chase marks, courses or degrees.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that educational institutions are meant to be academic institutes of eminence that help students pursue their academic pursuits for building a nation through the students or scholars who will be the future of this country.

“The academic institutions though are often not considered as one of the pillars of democracy, in this Court's opinion, educational institutions are definitely a strong pillar of not only the democracy, but the entire country as the country's future depends on the students who are its citizens,” the court said.

It added there is a difference between churning out and being factories producing people with degrees for their own needs, and cultivating good human beings and citizens when they are studying in an academic institute, who will make a strong country.

“For this, maintaining academic discipline and standards even at higher levels of studies and research work, both by the universities and its students is of critical importance to the community and the country as a whole,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by a man challenging Jawaharlal Nehru University's Academic Council's decision that overturned the recommendation of the varsity's Special Committee.

By the impugned decision, his request for de-registration from the PhD programme was denied. He prayed that his admission be reinstated to PhD programme, followed by a formal deregistration in accordance with the Special Committee's recommendations.

Rejecting the plea, the court said that the petitioner violated the mandatory Clauses of the University's Ordinance relating to the Award of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy as he did not complete the mandatory period of two years of residency.

The court said that the mere fact that the petitioner's employment aligned with his doctoral research objectives did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, sufficient to override the clear provisions of the Ordinance, particularly when he was aware that he was violating several mandatory clauses of the Ordinance by which he was bound as a student of the University.

“….the Courts have to consider the broader implications of their decisions, which should not solely focus on individual petitioners but also on the larger academic community. Needless to state, those who diligently follow the rules ought not to be disadvantaged by the actions of those who violate them,” the court said.

It added that a person who after successfully crossing each step of getting admission into a PhD leaves it mid-way, without any cogent reason in violation of various clauses of the Ordinance, wastes a seat or another candidate who may have wanted to pursue it more seriously devoting entire time to the research.

“Thus, judicial interference in academic policy matters, particularly when a student has willfully violated mandatory clauses of the Ordinance, would be detrimental to and would undermine the essential academic discipline which is crucial for any educational institution,” Justice Sharma said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Advocate

Title: SH. RITESH KUMAR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 821

Click here to read order