The Delhi High Court has dismissed a clutch of petitions challenging the implementation of semester system in undergraduate courses of Delhi University for academic year 2010-11.
A bench of acting chief justice BD Ahmed and justice Veena Birbal dismissed the two petitions moved by the Delhi University Teachers Association and Nandini Dutta, a teacher at the premier university last Friday. "We have consciously not been drawn into the debate as to whether the semester system is more appropriate than the annual system or vice-versa. The reason for this is clear. The courts are ill-equipped to comment on such matters or arrive at value judgments
.
"These are matters for educational experts. We have examined the matters from the stand point of law and have reached the conclusion that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed," the court said in its 88-page judgement. The HC, however, directed the varsity to publish the amendments to the ordinances, brought to implement the semester system, in the official gazette at the earliest.
The petitioners had "esentially" sought a direction to the Delhi University to roll back/discontinue the semester system and to follow the annual system which was earlier being followed.
The court rejected the contention that at the June 5, 2009 meeting, no resolution was passed with regard to introduction of the semester system to be introduced at the undergraduate level from academic session 2010-11 and the resolution was not put to vote. The court held that the contention is belied by the record placed before it. The HC also held as valid the resolution of the DU executive council to the effect that the semester system be introduced at the undergraduate level. The court also held that the two letters dated May 25, 2010 and May 26, 2010 by which syllabi for semester system in 12 undergraduate science courses was approved by the academic council and the vice chancellor by invoking his emergency powers had informed the principals of various colleges about the same cannot be faulted.
"The objection taken by the petitioners that the emergency powers had been wrongly invoked by the VC cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the academic council and the executive council approved of such action on the part of the VC. Consequently, the issuance of the letters cannot be faulted," the court said. The bench also rejected the challenge to the two meetings of the academic council and the executive council for implementation of the semester system. The high court also considered the challenge to the VC approving the amendments to the ordinances of the university in order to implement the semester-based course of study for the 13 undergraduate science courses.
The petition had contended the ordinances and the appendices to the ordinances had been amended while bringing into effect the semester system but the same were not laid before Parliament as required under the Delhi University Act and, therefore, should have no legal effect and ought to be declared as invalid. "We find that there is an absence of any provision having been made for dealing with the contingency where the Statute, ordinance or regulation is not laid before Parliament as indicated in section 32(5) of the said Act," the court said. "It is apparent and evident that till the modification is made by Parliament or till Parliament decides that the Statute, ordinance or regulation should not be made, and the Statute, ordinance or regulation in question would continue to have effect and would be valid.
"Therefore, going by the principles of interpretation, as indicated above, we feel that the requirement of placing the amendments to the ordinances in question before Parliament is only directory and not mandatory," the court added. "We are also of the view that if we hold the amendments to the ordinances and the appendices to the ordinances to be invalid, serious general inconvenience and prejudice would result to the general public and the students and teachers' community in particular." However, relying on a Supreme Court judgement, the bench directed university to comply with the requirements of section 32(5) at the earliest, the bench said.
