Diksha Bourai & Ors. vs University Of Delhi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~7&118
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010484082026

Date of decision: 09.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & CM APPL. 69554/2026
DIKSHA BOURAI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam
Prakash Singh, Ms Shabana Hussain, Mr Hrishabh
and Mr Nisar Malik, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Anurag Dayal Mathur Adv for R2
Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Adv. for R1
118
# CNR No. DLHC010422142026
+ W.P.(C) 13020/2026 & CM APPL. 60482/2026
SHRADDHA
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam
Prakash Singh, Ms Shabana Hussain, Mr Ankit
Bhati and Ms. Shivani Bansal, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Adv for R3
Mr Anurag Dayal Mathur Advocate for R2
Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Adv. for R1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )


1. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following respective prayers:-
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 1 of 15

“W.P.(C) 14837/2026
a. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing Respondent No. 2, Bhagini Nivedita
College, University of Delhi, to issue the requisite No
Objection Certificates (NOCs) in favour of the Petitioners
for their respective inter-college migration, namely, for
Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 to Respondent No. 3,
Vivekananda College, University of Delhi, and for
Petitioner No. 3 to Respondent No. 4, Ram Lal Anand
College, University of Delhi, in accordance with Ordinance
IV of the University of Delhi Calendar and the applicable
Rules and Regulations;
b. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to permit and
facilitate the migration of Petitioner no. 1 to the B.Sc.
(Hons.) Home Science, 2nd year, and Petitioner No. 2 to the
B.A. (Hons.) History, 2nd year, and directing Respondent
No. 4 to permit and facilitate the migration of Petitioner No.
3 to the B.A. (Hons.) History, 2nd year, in accordance with
law.
c. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
mandamus and direct the Respondents to pay the cost of this
petition to the petitioner....”
W.P.(C) 13020/2026
a. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 2 of 15

mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 (Bhagini Nivedita
College) to issue the requisite No Objection Certificate
(NOC) for the Petitioner’s migration to Respondent No. 3
(Swami Shraddhanand College) in accordance with
Ordinance IV of the University of Delhi Calendar;
b. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to allow the
Petitioner’s migration to the B.A. (Hons.) History, 2nd year;
c. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to initiate
appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the
Union members/students responsible for assaulting the
Petitioner and her mother on 31.08.2026, in the interest of
justice.
d. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of
mandamus and direct the Respondents to pay the cost of this
petition to the petitioner...”
W.P.(C) 14837/2026
2. For reasons stated in the petition, issue notice.
3. Mr. Rupal and Mr. Mathur, learned counsels, accept notice on behalf
of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and have argued the matter.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are bona fide
students, studying in respondent No. 2, namely Bhagini Nivedita College,
University of Delhi. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are seeking migration to
respondent No. 3 namely Vivekananda College, University of Delhi in B.Sc.
nd nd
(Hons.) Home Science, 2 Year and B.A. (Hons.) History, 2 Year,
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 3 of 15

respectively. The petitioner No. 3 is seeking migration to respondent No. 4
college namely Ram Lal Anand, University of Delhi, in B.A. (Hons.)
nd
History, 2 Year.
5. The petitioners sought for an NOC for inter-college migration from
the Principal of respondent No. 2 college. However, the same was denied to
the petitioners. Hence, the present petition was filed.
6. For the sake of convenience, the facts are set out with reference to
W.P. (C) 13020/2026, it being clarified that the same findings and reasoning
shall apply mutatis mutandis to W.P. (C) 14837/2026.
W.P(C) 13020/2026 & W.P. (C) 14837/2026

7. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bona fide student,
studying in respondent No. 2 namely Bhagini Nivedita College, University
of Delhi and is seeking migration to respondent No. 3 namely Swami
Shraddhanand College, University of Delhi, in B.A. (Hons.) History
Programme, 2nd Year. The petitioner got admitted in respondent No. 2
college in July, 2025, and has completed her first year securing a CGPA of
7.59.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that she has to commute a long distance
from her residence to the respondent No. 2 college. Travelling on a daily
basis is inconvenient for the petitioner and she has concerns regarding her
safety and security due to the same.
9. It is further stated the respondent No. 3 College is considerably closer
to the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner sought issuance of No-Objection
Certificate (“NOC”) for inter-college migration according to the rules
prescribed in the Ordinance IV of Delhi University Calendar, which was
rejected by the respondent No. 2. Hence, the present petition was filed.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 4 of 15

10. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has handed over a
counter affidavit in W.P.(C) 13020/2926 in Court today and the same is
taken on record. He states that migration is not a vested right of the student.
He further states that the respondent No. 2 college was established with the
vision of extending higher quality education to women, particularly those
belonging to rural and semi urban regions of Delhi.
11. The college is situated at Kair, Near Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043,
and caters largely to first generational learners, students from Economically
Weaker Sections and young women from neighbouring villages and rural
communities.

12. He further states that there has been a steady decline in the number of
intake of students and draws my attention to a chart depicting the same. He
states that if students are permitted to migrate to other colleges, the
respondent No. 2 will have fewer students and the same will result in
respondent No. 2 college having to shut down. Furthermore, the college
would be unable to achieve its above-mentioned objectives.
13. In view of the said reasons, the NOC for inter-college migration was
declined by the respondent No. 2 college.
14. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, draws my
attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Apoorva v.
University of Delhi, LPA 198/2012 dated 12.02.2012 and that of the Single
Judge of this Court in Himanshu v. University of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C)
2789/2021 dated 21.12.2021 to contend that migration is not a vested right
and can only be granted when valid reasons are shown. He also relies on the
Ordinance IV of Delhi University Calendar which reads as under:-
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 5 of 15

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 6 of 15

15. He relies on the aforesaid Ordinance IV to contend that the Principals
of the concerned colleges are to consider every application in accordance
with the same before granting the NOC.
16. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
17. In the present cases, the petitioners as per the given timelines, have
made applications for issuance of NOC in order to migrate from respondent
No. 2 college to respective respondent colleges. Furthermore, the reason
given by the petitioners seeking migration concerns the long distance
between the residence of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 college. The
following table depicts the distance between petitioners’ place of residences
with the respondent No. 2 college as compared to the respondent colleges
wherein they are seeking migration:-
Name of the
Distance from
Distance from petitioner’s
petitioner student
petitioner’s place of
place of residence to the
residence to respondent
respective college wherein
No. 2 college (approx)
they are seeking
migration (approx)
Ms. Diksha Bourai
55 kms 2.9 kms
i.e. petitioner No.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 7 of 15

1 in W.P. (C)
14837/2026
Ms. Vaishnavi
72 kms 2 kms
i.e. petitioner No.
2 in W.P. (C)
14837/2026
Ms. Sakshi Dubey
105 kms 38 kms
i.e. petitioner No.
3 in W.P. (C)
14837/2026
Ms. Shraddha i.e.
48 kms 7 kms
petitioner in W.P.
(C) 13020/2026

18. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel, relies on the judgment dated 12.03.2021
passed in LPA 198/2012 titled Apuvra vs. University of Delhi and Ors
wherein the respondent college’s action of disallowing migration on the
ground of the College being unable to improve its academic standards was
upheld . The relevant paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 read as under:-
“3. The respondent No.2 College had taken the policy
decision not to allow migration on the ground of distance
finding that a large number of its students (as many as 26 in
the last academic year) were seeking migration and as a
result of which the said College was unable to improve its
academic standards and its faculty was getting demoralized.
4. We may notice that this Court in Chetan Goel Vs.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 8 of 15

University of Delhi 2005 VIII AD (Delhi) 316 holding that if
students belonging to a College which is constantly
improving its academic achievements, are allowed to
migrate to other colleges, the same has a demoralizing
effect on the faculty which must be viewed seriously.
Similarly in Jatin Behl Vs. University of Delhi 99 (2002)
DLT 546 it was held that a student who has not been able to
secure admission in a College due to less marks than the
cut-off prescribed by that College, cannot be permitted to
secure the same by seeking admission by way of migration.
The Division Bench of this Court in Aman Ichhpuniani
(supra) laid down the guiding principle of balancing the
conflicting interests of the student and the institution. In the
present case though the appellant undoubtedly has to travel
for long for travelling to the respondent No.2 College and
the distance from her residence to the Vivekananda College
to which she sought migration is comparatively much less
but it cannot be lost sight of that the appellant took
admission in the respondent No.2 College knowing fully
well the said distance. When we weigh the reason given by
the appellant for migration against the reason given by the
respondent No.2 College for disallowing migration, we find
that the new colleges as the respondent No.2 would never be
able to come up if their best do not remain with them.
5. Moreover as aforesaid, the second year of the three years
course and in which migration is permissible is nearly over.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 9 of 15

We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and
dismiss the same. … ”
19. However, the aforesaid judgment dated 12.03.2012 fails to consider
the judgment of this Court in Aman Ichhpuniani v. The Vice Chancellor
Delhi University ; 1998 (44) DRJ (DB), wherein it has been held that
distance between the place of residence and the place of institution is a
relevant consideration and reaffirmed a student’s right to choose an
educational institution of his choice while seeking an admission. The
relevant paragraph Nos. 17, 19 and 23 read as under:-
“17. To illustrate, the concept of neighborhood schools is
gaining ground amongst the students and parents/guardians
as a school in neighborhood available to cater to the
educational needs of the students avoids the necessity of
commuting and thereby saving time, also saving from the
hazards of traffic. Distance between the place of residence
and the place of institution is a relevant consideration when
the student may find another institution available to cater to
his needs and situated in closer proximity.
. . . .
19. No institution can afford to retain good students with it
by forcing them to do so. They have to be persuaded and
made to feel convinced. A good student leaving a good
institution is a contradiction in terms. It is equally true that
a student cannot be allowed to migrate if institutional
discipline would suffer in permitting him to do so. To
illustrate, student facing disciplinary proceedings in an
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 10 of 15

educational institution cannot be allowed to migrate if
motivated by the idea of getting rid of such proceedings.
. . . .
23. To sum up, in our opinion :-
(i) To migrate from one college of the University to another
is not a vested right of student. A student may seek
migration from one College to another, if there be reasons
for doing so. Ordanance-IV confers discretionary power on
the principal of the College from which migration is sought
to forward or not to forward a prayer by a student seeking
migration. The power is coupled with a duty to act
reasonably guided by relevant consideration not by whim or
caprice. The welfare of the student and the institution have
both to be kept in view and weighed - if there be conflict
between the two;
(ii) A student has a right to choose an educational
institution of his choice while seeking an admission, but
such right cannot be exercised with the same vigour and
vitality while seeking migration;
(iii) A request by student seeking migration for reasons
relevant and germane to such prayer may not be denied
unless the principal be satisfied of the non-availability of
the grounds or be of the opinion that the migration will not
be in the interest of the student or the interest of the
institution outweighs the interest of the student. The choice
of the student has to be respected by giving due weight; for
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 11 of 15

no sensible student would ordinarily like to leave the
institution which he had chosen to join.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Accordingly, a perusal of Aman Ichhpuniani (supra) shows that the
distance between the place of residence and place of institution is a relevant
consideration in a situation where the student may find another institution
available to cater to his or her needs situated in a closer proximity to his or
her place of residence.
21. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Apuvra
(supra) did not consider Aman Ichhpuniani (supra). In any event, the
judgment in Apuva (supra) is distinguished on the fact that the petitioner
therein did not apply for issuance of NOC for migration within time.
22. The judgment of Apuvra (supra) has also been distinguished by a
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.09.2013 in W.P. (C) 5413/2013
titled Himani Sharma vs. University of Delhi and Ors. , wherein the Court
held that a blanket decision to not grant migration cannot be upheld as the
same is arbitrary and unreasonable. A decision rejecting such NOC must be
accompanied by reasons which are cogent, fair and reasonable. The relevant
paragraphs read as under:-
“7. If the decision taken by the institution to refuse the migration
certificate/ NOC is found on reasons which are not legal or germane
or are arbitrary and illogical, it would be open to the Court to
interfere with the decision of the institution, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case before
this Court, the respondent no.2 college did not undertake the exercise
to consider the request of the petitioner on merit. No speaking order
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 12 of 15

was passed by the Principal of the said college, taking into
consideration the interest of the petitioner as well as of the college
and migration was refused solely on account of a decision taken by
the Staff Council, not to grant migration from the said college to
another college of the university. In my view, Staff Council was not
justified in imposing a blanket ban on grant of migration certificate,
when the rules of the university, which are binding upon the college,
do permit migration from one college to another college in
appropriate cases. A blanket decision, not to grant migration
certificate in any case, irrespective of the merit of the case, would be
wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. The request of the
petitioner for grant of migration certificate could have been rejected
only for the reasons which are cogent, fair and reasonable. The
decision to refuse migration therefore is liable to be quashed.
…
9. The convenience of the student is required to be weighed vis-à-vis
inconvenience, if any, to the college from which migration is sought
by the student. Admittedly, the respondent no.2 Adity Mahavidhlaya is
a college aided by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, no
inconvenience or loss would be caused to the said college if the
petitioner migrates to another college affiliated to the same
university. On the other hand, it would certainly be beneficial for the
petitioner if she studies in a nearby college. In any case, since the
primarily it is for the student to decide where she wants to study, the
request for grant of migration certificate, in my view, cannot be
refused except for reasons which are cogent, germane and logical. No
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 13 of 15

such reason, however, is available for refusal of migration certificate
to the petitioner.
…
11. The learned counsel for Delhi University submits that mere
distance from the place of the student to the college would not be a
sufficient ground for grant of migration. In support of his contention
he relies upon a decision of this Court in Apurva Vs. University of
Delhi [2012(189) DRTJ 178]. A perusal of the aforesaid decision,
however, would show that migration in that case was declined on
several grounds including different reasons quoted by the appellant
from time to time, a policy decision of the college, not to allow
migration on the ground of distance and the last date for migration
was allowed which however is not the case before this Court. That
judgment, therefore, does not ipso facto apply to the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. In accordance with the afore-stated precedents and the specific factual
matrix of the present cases, I am of the view that consideration of proximity
between the student's place of residence and the place of the institution is a
reasonable consideration to grant NOC for inter-college migration.
24. No doubt the petitioners do not have a vested right to seek an NOC
for migration but the same can also not be arbitrarily rejected by the
respondent No. 2 college. A student has the right to choose the college
where he or she wishes to study.

25. The reason stated by the respondent No. 2 with regard to denial of
NOC for migration to the petitioners is that the same will result in
respondent No. 2 having fewer students and being unable to achieve its well-
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 14 of 15

directed objectives. If the same is accepted, it would justify refusal of every
request for migration, which can lead to a situation amounting to an arbitrary
blanket denial.
26. I am of the view that the aforesaid cannot be held to be a valid reason
to deny the said NOC and that the NOC cannot be withheld in an arbitrary
manner. Therefore, the refusal to grant NOC by the respondent No. 2 in the
present matters cannot be sustained.
27. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the respondent No. 2 is
directed to issue NOC to the petitioners expeditiously.
28. Since today is the last date for migration, Mr. Rupal, learned counsel
shall inform the colleges accordingly.
29. The petitions, along with any pending applications, are disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 9, 2026 / AS / MS
(Corrected and released on 14.10.2026)
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
11:22
W.P.(C) 14837/2026 & W.P.(C) 13020/2026 Page 15 of 15