The High Court of Delhi has delivered a significant ruling in a batch of writ petitions, mandating that colleges affiliated with the University of Delhi must provide No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) to students seeking inter-college migration based on the proximity of their residences. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that while inter-college migration is not a vested right of the student, institutions cannot arbitrarily withhold permission without considering valid and germane factors, particularly the hardship caused by excessive daily travel. The court’s order effectively sets aside the blanket refusal by Bhagini Nivedita College, which had denied the NOCs citing concerns over declining student enrollment and institutional viability.

The case involved multiple undergraduate students enrolled in the second year at Bhagini Nivedita College who sought migration to other constituent colleges of the university, including Vivekananda College, Ram Lal Anand College, and Swami Shraddhanand College. The petitioners argued that the significant distance between their residences and the college caused substantial inconvenience, safety concerns, and loss of time. Data presented before the court highlighted the extent of this commute, with distances ranging from 48 to 105 kilometers from the students' homes. In contrast, the colleges to which they sought migration were significantly closer, with distances as low as 2 to 38 kilometers.

The respondent college had contended that the migration requests should be denied to preserve the student body strength, arguing that the institution was established to serve first-generation learners and those from rural and semi-urban backgrounds. Counsel for the college emphasized that a continuous exit of students would hinder the institution’s ability to improve its academic standards and maintain its core educational objectives. Relying on earlier judicial precedents, the respondent argued that migration is not an absolute right and that the college’s institutional interest must be balanced against individual student preferences.

However, Justice Jasmeet Singh rejected the notion that the desire to maintain student enrollment numbers could justify a blanket denial of migration requests. Referencing the landmark Division Bench ruling in Aman Ichhpuniani v. The Vice Chancellor, Delhi University , the court reaffirmed that the distance between a student’s residence and the institution is a relevant consideration in the modern context of education. The court noted that, while an educational institution has an interest in maintaining stability, it must act with reasonableness rather than whim or caprice.

"No institution can afford to retain good students with it by forcing them to do so," the court observed, underscoring that institutional retention should ideally be achieved through persuasion and academic excellence rather than administrative barriers. The ruling further clarified that a student's choice to study in a preferred college deserves respect, provided that such a transfer does not undermine institutional discipline or circumvent admission criteria unfairly.

The court also drew a distinction between the present case and earlier rulings, such as Apoorva v. University of Delhi , which had upheld a college's refusal to grant migration based on specific academic challenges. Justice Jasmeet Singh pointed out that the Apoorva decision was distinguishable because, in that instance, the applicant had not submitted the NOC request within the stipulated time frame. Furthermore, the court cited Himani Sharma v. University of Delhi , reiterating that an administrative refusal of an NOC must be accompanied by cogent, fair, and reasonable justifications. A "blanket decision" to prevent migration across the board, the court held, is inherently arbitrary and unsustainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The legal reasoning centered on balancing the individual student’s welfare against the institutional requirements of the college. While acknowledging that colleges serve a crucial role in providing education, particularly for marginalized or first-generation learners, the court emphasized that these goals are not served by restricting the mobility of students who face genuine difficulties. The court found that the refusal by the respondent college failed to pass the test of reasonableness, as it did not engage with the specific hardships presented by the petitioners.

By the final order, the court directed the respondent college to issue the necessary NOCs expeditiously to ensure the students could complete their transition to the desired colleges. Given the temporal constraints—as the migration window for the second year of the undergraduate program was nearing its end—the court instructed the university’s legal representatives to inform the respective colleges immediately of the decision. This ensures that the bureaucratic delay inherent in the NOC process does not deprive the students of their opportunity to move to colleges that better align with their logistical requirements and safety considerations.

This judgment serves as a corrective measure against the practice of arbitrary administrative control over student mobility within the University of Delhi. It establishes a clear legal standard: when colleges act as gatekeepers for inter-college migration, they are legally bound to apply a balanced, non-arbitrary assessment that recognizes the validity of a student's personal circumstances. By prioritizing the student’s ability to minimize travel-related hardship, the court has reinforced the principle that institutional management must remain subservient to the fundamental goal of facilitating a conducive learning environment for all students. The respondents are now tasked with immediate compliance, bringing an end to the protracted uncertainty surrounding the petitioners' academic migration requests.