Colleges cannot arbitrarily deny migration NOCs; residential proximity is a relevant consideration.

The petitioners were students at Bhagini Nivedita College, University of Delhi, seeking inter-college migration to other Delhi University colleges for their second year. They applied for NOCs, relying principally on the shorter distance between their residences and the proposed colleges; the applications were refused. The college stated that migration would reduce its student strength and undermine its institutional objectives.

The distances stated for the petitioners ranged from 48 to 105 km to Bhagini Nivedita College, compared with approximately 2 to 38 km to their proposed colleges.

The petitions challenged the refusal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the college could refuse the petitioners’ requests for NOCs for inter-college migration on the stated ground that migration would reduce its student strength and impair its objectives.

Whether proximity between a student’s residence and the proposed college is a relevant consideration when deciding an inter-college migration request.

Article 226 empowers the Court to review a refusal of migration where the decision is arbitrary or rests on irrelevant or inadequate reasons.

Under Ordinance IV of the Delhi University Calendar, migration is not a vested right; the Principal has discretion to consider an application, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably, on relevant considerations, and with due regard to both the student’s welfare and the institution’s interests.

In Aman Ichhpuniani v. Vice Chancellor, Delhi University, 1998 (44) DRJ (DB), the Court recognised distance as relevant and held that a migration request based on germane reasons should not be refused unless the grounds are unavailable or the student’s or institution’s interests justify refusal.

Apoorva v. University of Delhi, LPA 198/2012, was cited for the proposition that migration is not a right and that institutional interests may justify refusal, but distinguished on its facts.

Himani Sharma v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5413/2013, was relied on for the principle that a blanket refusal is arbitrary and that rejection must be supported by cogent, fair and reasonable reasons.

The Court treated the petitioners’ shorter commutes as a relevant consideration, given the substantial differences in distance between their existing and proposed colleges.

Although migration was not a vested right, the college’s stated concern that allowing migration would reduce enrolment and frustrate its objectives was not a sufficient reason to refuse these individual applications. Accepting that rationale could justify refusing every migration request and thus amount to an arbitrary blanket denial. The Court therefore found the refusal unsustainable.

It directed counsel to inform the colleges because that day was the last date for migration, and disposed of the petitions and pending applications.

The judgment does not record a separate direction on the request for action concerning the alleged assault in W.P.(C) 13020/2026.