Summary of Opinion — High Court of Delhi (24 August 2018)

Factual and Procedural Background

Multiple Letters Patent Appeals (various LPA numbers, including LPA No.443/2018) were filed by the University of Delhi challenging a common judgment of the learned writ Court dated 06.07.2018. The University primarily contested the interpretation given by the writ Court to Rules 10 and 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the relief that had been granted relating to holding extra classes and taking consequential action. The University contended that the writ Court's interpretation and the relief granted were contrary to law, unsustainable and likely to create complications and derail the further admission process for the course in question.

After earlier hearings, this Court made suggestions to the University. The University informed the Court that, subject to preserving its objections on the interpretation of the Rules and legal questions for decision on merits, it was willing—limited to the petitioners before the Court—to declare results of those who had appeared under the interim order and to permit failed students one more opportunity in the forthcoming supplementary examination. The Court recorded the University’s undertaking and directed compliance. LPA No.443/2018 was kept pending for consideration of the legal questions raised; other appeals were disposed of in accordance with the undertaking.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the interpretation given by the learned writ Court to Rules 10 and 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules is correct.
2. Whether the relief granted by the writ Court for holding extra classes and taking consequential action was legally sustainable or whether it would create complications and derail the admission process for the course in question.
3. What other legal principles canvassed in the appeals (as raised by the University) require determination — these issues were reserved for consideration in LPA No.443/2018.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (University of Delhi) Arguments

• The interpretation placed by the learned writ Court on Rules 10 and 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules is contrary to law.
• The relief granted (including directions to hold extra classes and take certain consequential actions) is unsustainable and, if implemented, would create complications for the petitioners before the writ Court and would derail the further admission process for the course in question.
• Notwithstanding the above objections on interpretation and legal questions, the University (limited to the petitioners before the Court) was prepared to declare results for those who had appeared by virtue of the interim order and to afford failed students one opportunity in the forthcoming supplementary examination.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded on the basis of the specific factual matrix and the undertaking given by the University:

1. The Court noted that it had earlier given suggestions to the University and that the University had obtained instructions in response to those suggestions.
2. The University expressed willingness, in the peculiar facts of the case and limited to the petitioners before the Court, to declare results of candidates who had appeared pursuant to the interim order, and to provide failed candidates one more opportunity in the forthcoming supplementary examination; the University reserved its objections on the interpretation of Rules 10 and 18 and other legal questions for decision on merits.
3. Having regard to the University's undertaking and the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the undertaking met the ends of justice for the petitioners before it and that disposal of the appeals on that basis was appropriate for the present.
4. The Court therefore directed the University to declare the results of such petitioners forthwith (within three days) and to allow passed students to continue their studies and failed students to sit the supplementary examination, after which results would be declared and those students dealt with according to the Rules.
5. All issues concerning the interpretation of Rules 10 and 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules and other legal principles raised in the appeals were reserved for final consideration in LPA No.443/2018, which was kept pending for hearing; the Court will hear and decide the legal questions in that appeal.
6. The Court expressly limited the effect of its order to the petitioners before it, clarified that the order is not to be treated as a precedent, and stated that no further petitions or grievances would be entertained by the University or the Court on behalf of similarly situated candidates who had not approached the Court.
7. The sealed cover containing the candidates' results produced by learned Senior Counsel Shri Arvind K. Nigam was returned to him to be handed over to the University for declaration as directed.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF — Except for LPA No.443/2018 (which was retained for determination of the legal questions), all other Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of.

Implications and direct effects of the Court's decision (as recorded in the opinion):

• The University is directed to declare the results of petitioners who appeared in the examination by virtue of the interim order within three days from the date of the Court's order.
• Candidates who pass the declared examination will be permitted to continue their studies in accordance with the Rules.
• Candidates who fail will be given one opportunity to appear in the forthcoming supplementary examination; their results will thereafter be declared and they will be permitted to prosecute their studies in accordance with the Rules.
• The substantive legal questions relating to interpretation of Rules 10 and 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules and other legal principles will be decided later in LPA No.443/2018; that matter was listed for final hearing on 15.11.2018 and Shri Kirti Uppal was appointed to assist as Amicus Curiae for deciding the legal questions involved.
• The order is expressly non-precedential, limited to the petitioners before the Court, and the Court indicated that no further petitions or grievances by other similarly situated candidates who have not approached the Court will be entertained on this issue.
• The sealed cover of results was returned to counsel to be handed to the University for compliance with the directions.