Delhi High Court Upholds Academic Discipline in Higher Education
The Delhi High Court reiterates the importance of academic discipline in higher education, upholding Jawaharlal Nehru University's decision to refuse de-registration of a PhD scholar. The court emphasized that educational institutions must nurture academic growth and personal discipline, dismissing the scholar's petition citing willful violation of university rules.
![Delhi High Court Upholds Academic Discipline in Higher Education](https://devdiscourse.blob.core.windows.net/aiimagegallery/29_05_2024_11_56_02_7341884.png)
- Country:
- India
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the critical role of academic discipline in higher education, emphasizing that pursuing courses in breach of enrolment rules cannot be a matter of convenience for students.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted the responsibility of educational institutions, describing them as essential pillars of democracy tasked with nurturing students' academic growth and future contributions to the nation.
This perspective was articulated while upholding the Academic Council of Jawaharlal Nehru University's decision to refuse the de-registration of a PhD scholar, who sought to resume his studies while employed as an assistant scientist with the Haryana government.
The university had mandated a minimum residency of two years in Delhi, which the petitioner violated by taking up the job in Panchkula.
The court's judgement on July 22 stressed that maintaining academic discipline is crucial, and equating rigorously studying students with rule-violators could lead to a breakdown in order and standards in higher education institutions.
Justice Sharma also noted the detrimental effect of 'misplaced sympathetic orders', suggesting they could prompt more breaches of mandatory regulations by students.
Higher education, the court asserted, is not just about academic pursuits but also about instilling discipline, ethical behavior, and personal responsibility.
The limit of judicial interference in academic policy was reaffirmed, with the court stating it cannot substitute its judgment for that of academic experts unless decisions are found to be arbitrary or capricious.
(With inputs from agencies.)