'Should Not Suffer Due To Judicial Delay': P&H High Court Regularizes BDS Student's Admission Who Finished Course While Plea Was Pending

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has regularized the admission of a student who completed her degree while her plea challenging the order whereby her admission was cancelled was still pending, underscoring the "cardinal principle that no litigant ought to suffer a detriment owing to the vicissitudes of judicial delay."

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel in its order said, "...no party should suffer because of the fault or delay of the Court. Where judicial proceedings have been protracted not by the inaction or negligence of a litigant, but rather due to institutional delays beyond the party's control, the judiciary ought to adopt a corrective, rather than punitive stance."

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel illustrated that an interim relief is granted by a writ Court in favour of a litigant –– be it in the form of a stay order, an injunction, or the temporary enjoyment of a right or entitlement –– pending final adjudication. "If, owing to systemic delays, the final determination of the matter is deferred over an inordinate length of time, the litigant must not, upon disposal, be divested of the benefit that had accrued during the interregnum."

The bench further emphasised that the writ Courts are not merely passive arbiters but active guardian of equitable dispensation.

The Court was hearing a  came in an Intra Court Appeal filed by a student whose admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course had been annulled through a communication issued in 2017, on the ground that she did not meet the eligibility criteria of securing 50 per cent marks in physics, chemistry, and biology. The single judge of the high court had dismissed the student's plea against which she moved the division bench. 

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the student, who had scored 49.66 per cent, had been allowed to continue studies under interim orders, during which time she has completed the course and the degree is also been awarded. It was argued that since course was completed therefore her admission should be regularized.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that, the principles of "equity & justice" weigh heavily against such a course of action, as it would inflict irreparable hardship and substantial prejudice upon the appellant, who has acted in good faith, throughout.

The Court highlighted that It would be wholly repugnant to the foundational tenets of equity and fair play, if the delay, not solely occasioned by the parties, but attributable to the judicial process as well, were to result in forfeiture of rights or cause irreparable detriment.

It noted that moreover, the appellant's admission was effected against a seat that remained vacant, thereby occasioning no detriment to the rights or legitimate expectations of any other aspirant.

In in March 2017, the court hearing the appeal had granted interim relief to the student whereby she was permitted to continue her studies and cancellation of her candidature was kept in abeyance.

The bench thereafter considered that under interim relief the student has completed her degree in 2023. 

"The withdrawal of such interim relief, after it has matured into a de facto entitlement, would be akin to stripping armour from a soldier mid-battle, after having led him onto the battlefield under its shield,” the court remarked.

The court set aside the single judge's order and quashed the communication where she was found ineligible for admission in BDS course and her name was struck off. 

It thereafter regularized the student's admission and clarified that, "The ratio decidendi of the appeal in hand shall not be considered as precedent as the same has been passed in its individualistic, peculiar and accentuating factual milieu."

Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Parminder Singla, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Title: Harsimran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read/download the order