ADMINISTRATIVE LAW INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

PART I

Answer 1.

The present fact scenario involves two students namely X and Y who study in the Law
Department of a Central University. The Department’s Academic Rulebook has a provision
which states that in accordance with the BCI guidelines 70% attendance is mandatory to be
eligible for appearing in final examination. In addition, there’s a clause mentioning that the
Head of Department (HoD) may make exceptions to the rule if he/she deems fit.

The Law Department despite mentioning the provision of mandatory attendance in its
rulebook has neither enforced it in the past 20 years nor has it released any official
notification clarifying its stand on mandatory attendance policy. During the 5th Semester of
Law school of X and Y the new HoD decided to enforce the mandatory attendance policy and
the same was announced to all faculty and staff but not to students.

In Harla v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court opined that it would be against the
principles of natural justice if an individual would be penalised by laws of which he/she
could not even exercised due diligence for. It is a cardinal rule of natural justice that a law is
published or known to people. Even in the present fact scenario, not publishing to students
that the attendance policy will be strictly enforced and penalising them for the same goes
against the principles of natural justice as the students could not have exercised due diligence
for a policy whose enforcement, they were not even aware about.

The Latin phrase ‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’ (Ignorance of law is no excuse) presumes
that public has access to law therefore publication of a statute/policy/legislation is an integral
part of law-making. The opposition might argue that mentioning of the mandatory attendance
provision in the Department’s Academic Rulebook was sufficient to satisfy the principle of
publication.

However, in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. UOI, the SC opined that when there is no prescribed
mode of publication, the law will only become enforceable if it is published through a
“customarily recognised official channel or some reasonable mode of publication”. In the
present fact scenario, there was no prescribed mode of publication mentioned anywhere.
However, instead of the Academic Rulebook, all notifications released/signed by HoD will be
considered as “customarily recognised official channel or reasonable mode of publication”
as most Universities like the one in present fact scenario rely on notifications/emails released
by HoD’s and not on Academic Rulebook (unless otherwise specified) to guide their actions.
In the present fact scenario, the notification by HoD is equivalent to the Official Gazette and
therefore keeping in view the principle laid down in Panakj Jain it can be said that the mode
of publication was not official or reasonable. Hence, the argument of opposition concerning
publication is not acceptable.

Further, in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. and ors., the SC clarified that
publication is considered proper when public gets notified which means that it should be
published in such a manner than people if interested can acquaint themselves with its
contents. Mere printing on Gazette is not enough. In the present scenario, the students did not
get the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the contents of HoD’s notification regarding
enforcement of attendance policy. Mere circulation of the notification to the faculty and staff
is not enough.

In addition, even if we consider that publication in the Academic Rulebook was sufficient,
the present fact scenario is one of exceptional circumstances and the Academic Rulebook
also had a clause mentioning that the HoD may make exceptions to the rule as he/she may
deem fit. In light of the mentioned facts, HoD cannot strictly enforce the policy as the present
fact scenario is of exceptional circumstances and the HoD cannot fetter the discretion
endowed upon him through self-created policy. In Kesavan Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, the
Kerala High Court observed that an authority cannot fetter the discretion concerning a policy
that it has created for itself as the same would be contrary to law.

Therefore, it can be concluded that X and Y cannot be debarred as the notification by HoD
was not circulated to students and hence cannot be considered as published. In addition, the
HoD has discretion to consider the exceptional circumstances mentioned in the present fact
scenario and giving up on his discretion would be contrary to law as per Kesavan.