Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
Boivob Majumder – Appellant
Versus
National Law University Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 114/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pawan Reley, Akshay Lodhi, Simran Singh, Tanish Rawat, Utkarsh, Priyanshu Mishra
For the Respondents: Sanjay Vashishtha, Nishant Nain, Siddhartha Goswami, Geetanjali Reddy, Aditya Sachdeva
Disciplinary actions by educational institutions, if compliant with due process and regulations, are subject only to limited judicial review, and temporary remedial academic schemes for health conditions cannot be construed as permanent legal entitlements.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an expulsion order from the university hostel and sought the extension of a one-time mental health remedial assessment scheme for repeat examinations, citing violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the university's internal regulations. The court examined whether the university's disciplinary action complied with the Halls of Residence and Campus Regulations, 2022 and whether the assessment scheme constituted a permanent right. The central issues were: 1) whether the disciplinary action was proportionate and followed due process under university regulations; and 2) whether the remedial assessment scheme constituted a permanent entitlement. Relying on documentation of sustained disruptive conduct and a formal inquiry process, the court held that the university acted within its disciplinary powers, maintaining proportionality, and concluded that the assessment scheme was a one-time relief, not a perpetual policy. The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks judicial review of disciplinary expulsion and academic relief. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evaluation of disciplinary board procedures and compliance with institutional regulations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. rationale for upholding disciplinary measures and denying permanent academic scheme entitlement. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
O R D E R
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers amongst others:
i. “Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Proctorial Board Order dated 17.10.2025 (AnnexureP-1) and the Appellate Authority Order dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), being illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, and passed in violation of the Halls of Residence and Campus Regulations, 2022 and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith restore the Petitioner’s hostel accommodation and permit him to reside in the Halls of Residence without any hindrance;
iii. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to fully and effectively implement the approved 75%–25% assessment scheme in the Petitioner’s case, including its application to repeat examinations, and to allot and evaluate assignments accordingly within a time-bound manner;
iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that the deactivation of the Petitioner’s official academic email ID, without reasons and without due process, is arbitrary and violative of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
v. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to ensure uninterrupted access to the Petitioner’s official academic email ID and to restrain them from deactivating the same without passing a reasoned order and following due process of law;”
2. Mr. Reley, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that admittedly, the petitioner is a student of National Law University, Delhi and enrolled in the five-year integrated BA.LL.B. course since 2021. The petitioner is a foreign national residing in India solely for the purpose of education and the university hostel constitutes his only accommodation in the country.
3. The petitioner has been suffering from serious and persistent mental health condition including anxiety, depression, social phobia with obsessive symptoms, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
4. The petitioner raises two primary grievances by way of this writ petition. Firstly, the petitioner has been expelled from using the hostel facilities for a period of 3 months, i.e. from 08.12.2025 to 28.02.2026 vide order dated 06.12.2025. Secondly, the petitioner seeks direction to grant the benefits of the Special 75-25% Assessment Scheme, i.e. providing 75% weightage through alternative assessment and 25% through end-semester examination, for not only this semester but for the repeat examination which the petitioner is to undertake (the petitioner has failed in 29 out of 35 subjects, till 9th Semester).
5. As regards the first prayer of the petitioner regarding the expulsion from hostel facilities is concerned, Mr. Reley, learned counsel draws my attention to the Halls of Residence and Campus Regulations, 2022 and more particularly, regulation No. 25, relevant portions of which read as under:
“25. Methods of Dispute Resolution and Determination of Infractions
a. Under this clause, two main categories are being provided, each with their own separate procedures. They are:
i. Complaints from a student/s concerning the conduct of another student/s.
ii. Suo motu identification of infractions by the wardens and the Chief Warden.
b. Complaints from a student/s
i. On receipt of a written complaint from a student, the RGC shall make an initial deter
