Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pulkit Khurana v National Law University Delhi

Pulkit Khurana v National Law University Delhi

Ratings: (0)|Views: 518 |Likes:
Published by barandbench
Pulkit Khurana v National Law University Delhi
Pulkit Khurana v National Law University Delhi

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: barandbench on Jan 08, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/26/2014

pdf

text

original

 
W.P.(C) 8182/2013 Page
 of
3
#2 $~ *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 + W.P.(C) 8182/2013 & CM APPL. 17274/2013 PULKIT KHURANA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhor Garg and Miss Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates versus  NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI ..... Respondent Through None % Date of Decision : 2
nd
 January, 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1.
 
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the hostel rules/regulations of the respondent-University mandating the B.A.,LL.B. (Hons.) programme to be residential. The petitioner has also prayed for reconsideration of semester fees charged by the respondent-University. 2.
 
Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the condition of mandatory residential five years stay at the campus, imposed by the respondent-University is not only financially onerous but
 
W.P.(C) 8182/2013 Page
 of
3
illegal as well. Mr. Gupta submits that the Bar Council of India has not made B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) a compulsory residential based programme. 3.
 
Mr. Gupta adds that hardly any Judges, Attorney General(s), Law Officers, Senior Advocates or Advocates including the teachers teaching in the respondent-University have passed out from a mandatory residential law college. 4.
 
Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as having perused the replies given to queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the respondent-University as well as by the Bar Council of India, this Court is of the view that there is no legal bar in setting up a residential university. In fact, it has been left to the discretion of the respondent-University to decide as to whether it wants to have a residential  programme for law course or not. 5.
 
Admittedly, the respondent-University is an autonomous body established by the Act No. 1 of 2008 of Government of NCT of Delhi and a copy of the impugned hostel rules have been approved by the Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 11
th
 August, 2008. Consequently, the respondent-University is entitled in law to offer a residential based B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) course. 6.
 
As far as the plea that there is no distinction between a mandatory residential law college and a non-residential law college is concerned, this Court is of the view that petitioner has the option to choose between a residential university and a university that offers only a LL.B. day course. But in the opinion of this Court, it is for the university to choose as to whether it wants to offer a residential course or a non-residential LL.B. course. Petitioner as a law student cannot dictate terms to the university.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->