The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Delhi University regarding the ongoing St. Stephen’s seat allocation dispute. In its judgement, the court emphasised the need for “time-bound solutions” to address such conflicts moving forward. The court’s decision highlights the importance of resolving institutional disagreements promptly to avoid prolonged disputes. It called for a structured framework to handle these issues efficiently, ensuring smoother future collaboration between the university and its affiliated colleges.
Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma issued an order mandating that institutions with reservations regarding the seat matrix transmit their complaints to Delhi University’s appropriate authorities going ahead. The deadline for submitting these concerns is three months before the commencement of the admissions process for any forthcoming academic session. This advanced communication is intended to facilitate a more seamless and effective admissions process by guaranteeing that problems are promptly rectified.
The court stated that the university would address the representation within two months of receiving it. This process would involve holding necessary meetings and taking other actions as deemed fit. The court further emphasised that this approach would help ensure students do not encounter any obstacles in attending their classes. Resolving grievances early would also allow the colleges to manage their administration and conduct classes smoothly without having to seek intervention from the court.
The court underscored the significance of educational establishments in moulding the upcoming generations of the country. These institutions ought to concentrate on their main duties of administration and instruction rather than being mired in protracted legal disputes. The court recommended that conflicts could be settled through prompt talks between the parties involved to avoid such legal diversions. Establishing frequent meetings and timeframes for resolutions could help institutions steer clear of pointless legal proceedings and focus on their primary duties.
Justice Sharma was presiding over two petitions filed by several candidates who were facing issues with their admission to St. Stephen’s College. Despite meeting the necessary qualifications and having meritorious records, these applicants had their admission applications neglected by the college due to St. Stephen’s seat allocation dispute. The pleas were brought before the court seeking justice for the unfair treatment they encountered during the admission process.
The court has determined that the thirteen Bachelor of Arts programs offered by St. Stephen’s College should be regarded as individual and separate programs when it comes to seat allocation for admissions under both the Christian Minority category and the Unreserved category. This ruling emphasises that each program should be treated distinctly, ensuring a fair and transparent process for seat distribution. In addition, the court dismissed St. Stephen’s College’s argument against Delhi University’s policy of allocating extra students during the initial admission round. The college had claimed that this practice was both unlawful and arbitrary.
The court observed that keeping the petitioners’ applications in a prolonged “under process” status effectively prevented them from participating in later allocation rounds. As a result, they missed out on other potential opportunities to secure a seat elsewhere.
The court further noted that the case of St. Stephen’s seat allocation dispute had gone through a long and complex journey, reaching the final stage of litigation. Throughout this process, the petitioners faced uncertainty regarding their future and their chances of admission into the college they had worked so hard to get into. Finally, the court remarked, the petitioners can now see a light at the end of the tunnel.
