Full Judgment Text
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
+ LPA 361/2026
AMAN BANSAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Arya, Mr. Harsh Goyal,
Mr. Naveen Bamel, Mr. Yuvraj, Mr.
Aakarshak Rathi and Mr. Manav
Trivedi, Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet
Kaur, Mr. Gaurav, Ms. Simran
Kumari, Ms. Pooja and Ms. Medha
Sharma, Advocates for BCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
CM APPL. 32614/2026 ( Condonation of delay )
1. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 23
days in filing the present Appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 23 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 32615/2026 ( Exemption )
4. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 1 of 7
LPA 361/2026
6. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 18.03.2026 ( “Impugned Order” ) passed in
W.P.(C) 3508/2026 ( “Writ Petition” ), whereby the Writ Petition, which
sought directions to the Respondents to forthwith declare the Petitioners’
Semester-II results and allocate an appropriate section in Semester-IV, was
disposed of with a direction to declare the Appellant’s Semester-II
examination result forthwith and, if the Appellant were found eligible, he
would be permitted to take admission in Semester-III. However, the relief
sought by the Appellant for admission to Semester-IV, without having
attended any classes or appeared in the Semester-III examinations, was
declined on the ground that non-attendance of even a single class cannot be
equated with a mere shortage of attendance as the benefit of the judgment
dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court in Courts on its Own Motion Re:
Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University in
W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 would not be available to the Appellant.
7. The Appellant has assailed the Impugned Order to the extent that the
consequential relief necessary to restore his academic continuity and
progression has been denied, inasmuch as no direction has been issued to the
Respondents to admit the Appellant to Semester-IV, to conduct
supplementary examinations for Semester-III, and to adjust the re-admission
fee paid by the Appellant for Semester-II against the fee payable for
Semester-IV, with refund of any excess amount.
8. The Appellant is a student of the LL.B. programme at Law Centre-I,
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, and had cleared all five papers of
Semester-I, securing 354 out of 500 marks. In Semester-II, the Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 2 of 7
was detained on the ground of shortage of attendance as it was recorded at
27.58%. However, pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee
constituted by the Respondents in terms of the official notice dated
27.05.2025, the Appellant was provisionally permitted to appear in the
Semester-II examinations, subject to the outcome of the Committee
proceedings. Although the Appellant appeared in the Semester-II
examinations, his result was withheld and he was denied admission to
Semester-III. Consequently, the Appellant was unable to attend Semester-III
classes or appear in the Semester-III examinations.
9. The Appellant has contended that, despite repeated representations, no
final decision of the Committee proceedings was ever communicated to him.
Thereafter, notwithstanding that the Appellant had undertaken the Semester-
II examinations and that no allegation of misconduct or malpractice was
ever levelled against him, he took re-admission in Semester-II and deposited
re-admission fees amounting to ₹7,130/- on 10.01.2026, with a view to
avoiding academic discontinuity.
10. The Appellant thereafter approached this Court by way of the Writ
Petition. Vide the Impugned Order, the Respondents were directed to
immediately declare the Semester-II results. However, the Respondent did
not promote the Appellant to Semester-III to afford academic continuity.
11. In the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge declined to grant
consequential relief on the ground that the Appellant had neither attended
the Semester-III classes nor appeared in the Semester-III examinations.
12. It is the Appellant’s case that he was denied admission to Semester-III
as a direct consequence of the withholding of his Semester-II results.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, in terms of the Prospectus
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 3 of 7
governing the LL.B. programme, a student is eligible for promotion to the
Third Term upon having passed at least five papers in the First and Second
Term examinations taken cumulatively. It was further submitted that, since
the Appellant had admittedly passed all five papers of Semester-I and had
undertaken the Semester-II examinations pursuant to the Respondents’ own
permission notice, the Respondents ought to have granted him admission to
Semester-III notwithstanding the non-declaration of the Semester-II results.
13. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that similarly
situated students have been permitted to continue their academic progression
and to appear in higher-semester examinations despite not having appeared
in the intervening odd-semester examinations.
14. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the result of
Semester-II has been declared as per direction in the Impugned Order,
however, the relief sought by the Appellant for granting admission into
Semester-IV cannot be accepted as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in case of Harsh Meena & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Ors. [LPA
740/2025], wherein vide order dated 04.12.2025, the appeal was dismissed
while observing as under:
“We may also note that permitting students to sit for examinations
who have not attended even a single class would not augur well in
the public perception. In fact, it may be discouraging to all those
sincere students who not only attended their classes but also ensured
that they are not short of attendance. Permitting such students
would also be a premium to clear indiscipline and insincerity. The
appellants being the students of law, ought to have been more
sincere in attending classes and its unfathomable as to how the
students who have not attended even a single class would be able to
sit for the examination.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 4 of 7
15. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
Impugned Order.
16. The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the Appellant
can be permitted to appear in the Semester-IV examinations despite having
neither attended any classes nor appeared in the examinations for Semester-
III.
17. In the facts of the present case, the Appellant had a shortage of
attendance in Semester-II. Notwithstanding the same, he was provisionally
permitted to appear in the Semester-II examinations held in May–June 2025,
subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Committee constituted
by the Respondents. Upon completion of the Semester-II examinations, the
Appellant’s result was withheld. Consequently, the Appellant was denied
promotion to Semester-III in August 2025 and was also precluded from
appearing in the Semester-III examinations in December 2025.
18. Thereafter, the Appellant took re-admission in Semester-II and
resumed classes in January 2026. Subsequently, in March 2026, the
Appellant instituted the Writ Petition seeking, inter alia , declaration of his
Semester-II result and permission to appear in the Semester-IV examinations
in the interest of maintaining academic continuity.
19. Although the learned Single Judge granted the relief of declaration of
the Semester-II result, relying upon the decision in Sushant Rohilla ( supra ),
the prayer for permitting the Appellant to appear in the Semester-IV
examinations was declined on the ground that the facts of the present case
were distinguishable. It was observed that, unlike in Sushant Rohilla
( supra ), the Appellant had neither attended a single class in Semester-III nor
cleared the examinations for that semester. The learned Single Judge further
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 5 of 7
held that no parity could be drawn between nil attendance and mere shortage
of attendance and, on that basis, declined the consequential relief of
admission to Semester-IV.
20. We are of the considered view that students, who have neither
attended even a single class in a particular semester nor appeared in the
examinations for that semester, cannot claim the benefit of progression to
the next semester, even where the denial of admission was for reasons not
attributable to them. In the present case, the Appellant had a shortage of
attendance in Semester-II and was, therefore, only provisionally permitted to
appear in the Semester-II examinations, subject to the outcome of the
proceedings before the Committee constituted by the Respondents.
Consequently, the Appellant was not granted admission to Semester-III and
did not attend any classes for that semester.
21. In view of the above, the Appellant cannot be permitted to bypass an
entire semester without attending a single class by placing reliance upon the
decision in Sushant Rohilla ( supra ), which dealt with a case of shortage of
attendance and not one of nil attendance. Accordingly, there is no parity
between the Appellant’s case of 0% attendance and cases involving shortage
of attendance. The benefit of the decision in Sushant Rohilla ( supra ) cannot
be extended to students who neither took admission to nor attended any
classes in the relevant semester, as the ratio of the said decision was
confined to situations where the students fell short of the prescribed
minimum attendance in that semester.
22. Accordingly, while the learned Single Judge rightly granted relief to
the Appellant by directing the Respondents to immediately declare the
Semester-II result, the further relief of admission to the next semester by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 6 of 7
skipping the intervening semester, in which the Appellant had not taken
admission, was also rightly declined.
23. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant that under the
Prospectus governing the LL.B. programme, he ought to have been granted
admission to Semester-III since he had cleared all five papers of Semester-I
and the requirement for promotion to Semester-III was the cumulative
passing of five papers in the Semester-I and Semester-II examinations,
cannot be accepted at this stage. The Appellant did not approach this Court
during the period when Semester-III was in progress by placing reliance on
the said clause of the Prospectus. Instead, the Appellant allowed Semester-
III to conclude, took re-admission in Semester-II, and approached this Court
only when Semester-IV was already underway. In these circumstances, and
having regard to the Appellant’s inaction, the relief sought in the Writ
Petition for direct admission to Semester-IV was rightly rejected.
24. In any event, as the Appellant did not attend even a single class in
Semester-III, he cannot be permitted to appear in supplementary
examinations for Semester-III and, on that basis, seek admission to
Semester-IV by relying upon the decision in Sushant Rohilla ( supra ).
25. For the aforesaid reasons, no ground is made out for interference with
the Impugned Order. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 14, 2026/sms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
15:31:13
LPA 361/2026 Page 7 of 7