DU Exams: Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Common Service Centres to Fix their Plans for Conducting Online Exams

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to Common Service Academy which got directions from the Delhi University to enable the outstation of final year students for the online, open-book examination.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic had been aggravating over the past few days. Amid this mayhem, many Colleges had decided to conduct examinations to maintain the academic progress of students and to ensure the prime quality of education despite the current situation. They had also decided to prevent any drawback for the students in the future. For this, the Delhi University had decided to conduct examinations. It had conducted online mock exams so that the students could be aware of the online examination platform. During this, several of them had faced technical glitches and were thus worried about the exams.

For further simplification, the authority permitted Open Book Examinations. A petition got filed concerning the above issues. The DU had scheduled to hold final year undergraduate online OBE from August 10th to 31st. The students who are excluded from online exams had the opportunity to appear for physical examinations. This would happen sometime in September. It had also decided that the first phase of mock tests would begin from July 27th and the second phase would begin from August 1st.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The Petitioner stated that the students should get at least 24 hours to submit their answer sheets due to technical glitches. The Counsel intervenor for the students pointed out that the University was not complying with the earlier orders. This was on sending the question paper by email, stopping the clock for 30 mins in case of a technical glitch, etc.

Respondent’s Contentions

Senior Advocate Sachin Dutta had represented the Delhi University. He stated that the CSCs functioned under the aegis of the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India. Advocate M Rupal added that Delhi University had signed an MoU with the CSC Academy. This was to provide logistical assistance to it for the online examination amid COVID-19. Delhi University had contended that they were holding online exams. It was in view of the UGC guidelines, which made it mandatory to conduct final year examinations.

Senior Advocate Dutta assured the Court that all its orders would be duly complied with. He stated that the first mock was only for the limited purpose of “downloading and uploading” the question paper. He also stated these directions are must to follow during the real-time test. Apurv Kurup was the counsel for the UGC. He told the Court that 24 hours duration for submission would raise questions about the “sanctity” of the examinations.

Court’s Observation

A single-judge bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh had been set up. The hearing occurred via video conferencing. The order got passed after they received the notice of the poor condition of infrastructure at CSCs. The Court got information that the CSCs run at the village panchayat level in the form of a public cafe. Professionals did not run them as such.

The Court had directed the CEO of CSC Academy to list out all the centres which are suitable for the examination and state their preparedness. It also perused the report submitted by the UGC’s committee, headed by Professor R C Kuhad on final guidelines. On the last date of hearing, the Court had asked UGC to clarify if they are including MCQs, Assignments, presentations, etc. for final year students. The Court asked the Counsel for DU to seek instructions if any other organization was also engaged in conducting exams. Besides CSC Academy, the varsity conducts exams in-house. The Court remarked:

“Sanctity has to be balanced with the kind of facilities which are available with us.”

Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta informed the Court that challenges to the UGC guidelines on several grounds were pending before the Supreme Court. The Court opined that the cases before it and the orders of Supreme Court might include certain overlapping issues. Thus, considered it appropriate to delay the hearing. It also observed that unlike other universities across the globe, Delhi University had not been helping its students.

Court’s Decision

The Court will hear the main petition on July 30th.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -