“Peaceful Protest and Non-Violent Dissent Are Natural to Academic Environment”: Delhi High Court Quashes Student Expulsion
A university that accepts only obedience and discourages protests and criticism would fail in its broader educational role.
A university that accepts only obedience and discourages protests and criticism would fail in its broader educational role.
“The petitioners acted in accordance with the existing Bye Laws and the consistent past practice of CBSE and, therefore, had a legitimate expectation that after passing Class XII examination on 13.05.2025 the right to appear as private candidates for the Additional Subject examination, would be available.”
“If the ROPA itself mandates that non-joinder of a necessary party leads to dismissal of an election petition, the Court cannot use CPC provisions to cure that defect.”
“An election petition involves judicial interference with the electoral process and, consequently, with the mandate of the people. For this reason, the provisions of the Act must be construed strictly.”
The State has obligation to protect Student’s Right to Pursue Higher and Professional Education.
The respondent submitted that no arbitration clause existed in light of the IRDAI Circular dated 27-10-2023 and Gazette Notification dated 23-1-2024, which had de-notified and superseded arbitration clauses in fire insurance policies.
“Such an order merely terminates the arbitral proceedings on account of the claimant’s default in filing the statement of claim and does not involve any adjudication or determination of the rights or obligations of the parties.”
Vedanta is engaged in a product sharing contract with the government of India, for exploration, discovery, development and production of petroleum resources in relation to an onshore oil and gas block known as Rajasthan Block, since 1995.
The present incident took place on 4-1-1984, and since then the proceedings have been continuing for over four decades, with the trial itself taking nearly 19 years to conclude, and the present appeal remaining pending for more than 22 years.
The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents/communication exchange between the parties.
“The provisions of CPC are only applicable to the extent of ‘enforcement’ of an award which are reflected in Order 21 of CPC. The legislature did not intend to permit a challenge an award during enforcement proceedings again on merits as it would be contrary to the objectives of the A&C Act which aims to ensure finality and limited judicial interference.”
The Court stated that the applicant should obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities concerned to see if more trees can be planted on the road leading to the Supreme Court as the same was enveloped with fully grown trees till some years ago.
While the legal age of consent is important for protecting minors, the adolescents should be allowed to express their feelings and engage in relationships without fear of criminalization. The focus of the law should be on preventing exploitation and abuse rather than punishing love.
The Court expected the State to ensure adequate protection of the fundamental rights of Amandeep Singh Batra, including his right to life and liberty.
The RSS member relied on exception 10 to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which elaborates that conveying a caution in good faith is not defamation.
‘If the non-signatory’s actions align with the signatories, it could reasonably lead the signatories to believe that the non-signatory was a veritable party to the contract containing the arbitration clause.’
As per Clause 26.2 of the Agreement, the Chairman/Managing Director of the Board of Directors of Contractors was supposed to do the conciliation and not the committee constituted by NHIDCL.
The direction given by the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the period from 31-03-2015 to 31-03-2017 for calculation of pre-litigation interest was contrary to the express terms in the Agreement made between the parties.
The Court noted Arbitration agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid. Appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) petition.