Holding

In the absence of bias or mala fides, a declaration of unsatisfactory academic performance by an academic body does not require a prior hearing, so the removal from the rolls is valid.

Summary

B.S. Narwal enrolled in the five‑year integrated M.A. programme in Russian at Jawaharlal Nehru University but failed to clear any core courses in the first three semesters despite being allowed to repeat them. The Centre of Russian Studies recommended, and the University acted on, his removal from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic performance. Narwal challenged the removal in the Delhi High Court, arguing that he was denied a hearing and that the University had not applied its mind to the facts. The High Court set aside the removal, directing his readmission. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that where an academic body assesses a student’s performance and finds it unsatisfactory, no prior hearing is required unless there is bias or mala fides, and therefore the removal stood. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a student is entitled to a hearing (audi alteram partem) before being struck off university rolls for unsatisfactory academic performance.
Whether the university applied its mind in assessing the student's performance.
Whether principles of natural justice apply to academic assessments by university authorities.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 36
Jawaharlal Nehru University Act

Subjects

academic assessmentnatural justiceaudi alteram partemuniversity regulationsunsatisfactory performanceremoval from rollsspecial leave petition

Judgment

'
618

A

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
v. J.
B. S. NARWAL
B
September 4, 1980
[V. R. KRJSHNA lyER AND 0. CmNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

University-Student-Unsatisfactory performance in studies--Name removed
from University rolls--Opportunity to show cause whether to be given-Doctrine
C of audi alteram partan-Applicability of. ·
The appellant University offered integrated 5 years programme of study
leading to the award of M.A. degree in several disciplines and languages. The
programme was spread over ten semesters in 5 academic years. The courses in
the discipline in which a student was formally registered were known as the
'core-courses' while the other courses for which also the student had to pres-
cribe were known as 'tool courses' and 'optional courses'.
D
The respondent was a student of the five year integrated programme of
study in the Master of Arts degree in Rnssian Language at the appellant Uni-
versity. In the first two semesters, he failed to take the sessional test in any
of the 'core courses' in Russia11 and consequently he was not allowed to sit
for the end semester examinations. He, however, appeared for the examinations
in the 'tool courses' and the 'optional courses' in the first two semesters. In
E the third semeste~ the respondent requested permission of the University to
repeat the courses of the first semester so as to enable him to pass them. The
University permitted him to do so but he failed in all the five courses in
which he was permitted to do so.
Dissatisfied with his performance the Centre of Russian Studies recom-
mended to the Board of Studies that the respondent's name bll struck off the
F rolls and his name was accordingly removed from the rolls.
The High Court, allowed the respondent's writ petition on the ground
that : (I) no opportunity to show cause was given to him before his name
'was struck off the rolls, and (2) that the University did not apply its mind
to the question whether the respondent's performance was unsatisfactory.
In the appeal to this Court on the question : whether the respondent was
G entitled to an opportunity of being heard, before removing him from the rolls
of the University.

Allowing the appeal :
HELD ~ l. In the absence of allegations of bias or mala fides, the decla-
ration by an academic body that a student's academic performance is unsatis-
factory is not liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that the
H student was not given an opportunity of being heard. [623 E-F]
This is not a case of expulsion pursuant to a claim by the authorities of
a University to discipline the student at their discretion and the right of the
'i\WAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY v. B. s. NARWAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 619"

-student to freedom and justice. The case is merely one of assessment of the A
academic performance of a student which the prescribed authorities of the
University. are best qualified and the Courts are least qualified to judge.
f623 A-BJ .
.J. . Herring v. Temp/emen & Ors. 1973 (3) All E. R.. 569 & 584; Regina v. Aston
University Senata 1969 (2) All E.R. 964 referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3115 of 1979. B

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order, dated
6-8-1979 of the Delhi H~ Court in Civil Writ No. 395 of 1979.
K. K. Venugvpal, H. K. Puri and S. C. Dlg1uda for the Appellant.
A. K. Gupta for ·i'he Respondent. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CmNNAPPA REDDY, J. The Jawharlal Nehru University, considered
to be one of the prestigious academic institutions of the country, is
the appellant in this appeal by special leave of this Court; under
Article f36 of · the Constitution. Named after the great liberal, D
humanist and democrat of the century, thle University was established
by Act of Parliament to "embody a unique synthesis of Humanities,
the Sciences and Technology" and to "endeavoilr to pi'.Omote the
study of principles for which Jawaharlal Nehru worked during his
lifetime, namely, natiooal integration, l'locial justice, secularism, demo- . E
cratic way of life, international understanding and scientific approach
to the problems of society".
·~
'The Court' is the. supreme authority of. the University and it
has the power to review the acts of the Executive Council and the
Academic Council. The Vice Chancellor is the Principal Executive
and Academic Officer of the University. The Execufive Council is F
the executive body of the University, in charge of the general manage-
ment and administration of the University while the Academic Council
is the academic body of the University, respansible for the mainte-
nance of standards of instruction, education and examination within
the University. The Executive Council is empowered to make
G
'Statutes' in the manner prescribed by the Jawahar!al Nehru University
Act and to make 'Ordinances' in the manner prescribed by the Statutes.
+ · Ordinances have been duly made and Ordinance 13 deals with
the award of M.A., B.A., (Honours) and B.A. (PaS1s) degrees. The
University offers rlltegrated Five-Year Programmes of studie8 leading
to the award of M.A~ Degree in several Disciplines and I:,angriage5. H
Russian is one o~ the languages in which mich a programme of
studies is offered. The programme is spread over ten semesters,
: ~ J 62 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] l S.C.R_

in five academic years. In the first two semest.e11S, courses described'
as 'C' level courses are given,' in the next four se!llesters 'B' level
courses are given and in the last four semeste11s 'A' level course&
are given. Each 'C' level course carries two credits, each 'B' level
course three credits and each 'A' level course four credits. Paragraph
7.3 of Ordinance 13 prescribes a minimum of 144 credits in the
case of Social Sciences and 176 credits in the case of languages
for the Master of Ailts Degree, out of which there have to be a
minimum of 20 credits from 'C' level courses, 60 from 'B' level
courses and 64 from 'A' level courses in the case of Social Sciences
and a minimum of 28 from 'C' level courses, 84 from 'B' level
c courses and 64 'from 'A' level courses, in the case of languages. It
is further prescribed that a minimum of 50% of credits but not
more than 75 % should be in the discipline in which the student is
formally registered for the Master's degree. It may be mentioned
here that the courses in the discipline in which the IS'tudent is
formally registered are known as the 'core courses' while the other
courses · for which also the student has to prescribe are known as
'Tool courses' and 'optional courses'. Paragraph 7.5 prescribes that
the courses on the basis of which a student earns his 'C' level
credits shall be atleast from four disciplines. Paragraph 7.6 provides
that a student shall be required to earn atleast ·a minimum of ten
credits from courses in Tools, Techniques and Methodology.
E Paragraph 8 of Ordinan.ce 13 prescribes the method of evaluatix:m.
Sessional work is to carry the same weight as the semester exami'·
nation. In each course a student is gtaded on a ten point scale
and the final grade point is obtained by applying the formula

F =
Where F is the final grade point of the student C 1 is the credlt
of the ith course, G ; ils the grade point secured by the student
in the ith course and "J is the total number of courses for which
the studeint has prescribed. A student who fails in a course is
,G required to repeat the course or clear another course in lieu of
the course in which he has failed. Paragraph 9 of the Ordinance
prescribes the minimum standard of gnade point requirements.
Every student is required to maintain a minimum cumulative grade
poilllt; average of 2.0 during the first two semesters. At the end of
the sixth semester the cumulatiye. grade point average has to be 4.0
H if he ~s to fur'fuer continue in the programme of study. If he is
to be awarded the Master of Arts qegree he must haV<: a minimum
cumulative grade point ayerage of .4.0.. . Paragraph 11 of tho
-·
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, v. 'B, s. NARWAL (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 621

Ordinance is important for the purposes of .this case and it may be A, ··
extracted here. As it stood at the relevant time, 'it was as follows:
"The Board of the School, on the recommendation of the
Centre, may remove the name of a student from the course on
, the brusis of unsatisfactory academic performance".
The respondent B. S. Narwal was admitted, in 1974, to the five B
year integrated programme af study leading to Master of Arts
Degree in Russian Language at the Centre of · Russian Studies in
the Jawaharlal Nehru University. As he was seeking a degree in
Russian Language, the 'core courses' had necessarily to be those
concerned with ·Russian language, literature and translation. In the c
first two semesters, he failed to take the sessional tests in any of
the 'core courses' in Russian and consequently he was not allowed
to sit for the end semester examinations. He thus failed to clear
any of the 'core courses' in the first two semesters. He, however,
appeared for the examinations in the 'tool' and the 'optional courses'
in the first two semesters and prescribed for five credits in two D
courses, in the first semester and eight· credits in .three courses, in the
secqnd semester. In the third semester the respondent requested
permission. of the .Univernity to repeat the courses of the first semes-
ter so as to enable him to pass th'em. As a special case, he was
permitted to do so, but he failed in all the five courses in respect
of which he sought and obtained permission to so repeat. The E.,,
respondent, however, passed (securing B+) in an optional course
for which he prescribed in the thir(f semester. At the ood of the
third semester the net result was that he had not cleared a single
'core course'. ·

The Centre of ·Russian S.tudies was dissatisfied witb the perfor- F
mance of the respondent and some other students and at a meeting
held on January 20, 1976, the Centre decided to recommend to the
Board of Studies, School of Langµages, that seven students includ-
ing the respondent should be struck off the rolls o! the University
for unsatisfactory performance. The recommendation of the Centre
of Russian Studies was accepted by the authorities of the Univprsity G
and by an office order, dated January 31, 1976, the respondent and
+ others were removed from the rolls of the University for unsatisfactory -
performance as recommended by the Centre.
The respondent appeared to accept the decision of the Univer·
sity and kept quiet for a period of two years and six months, but H ,
in August, .1978, he filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court
cliaUenging ,the .ord<;r removing him from the rolls af the University
19-647 S.C. Jndia/80
I~.-~ 622 _.. . .,- . - ''\ SUPREMB COUll~ llEPORTS [19811 1 S.C.R ...
on the grol.uid that the orde11 had been made in violation of the
principles of natural . justice. The Writ Petition was opPosed by
t~e. University but when the Writ Petition . came for hearing
on November. 24, 1978, on a query by the Court whether h was )

feasible to readmit the respondent, the University agreed to recon-
sider the question sympathetically. Thereupon, the Writ Petition •
B. was dismissed. Pursuant to · the assurance given · before the High
Court the Centre of Russian · Studies considered the question once
again and found itse1f unable to admit the respondent in the middle
of the academic year. The respondent was, however, informed that
his case could be considered in the monsoon semester commencing ~
from July 1979, that is, at the beginning of the academic year.
The respondent was advised to send a fresh application tor admission.
The respondent being dissatisfied with the attitude of the
University filed a fresh Writ Petition in the High Court, once again.
challenging the order removing him from the rolls of the University.
The High Court by their judgment, dated August 6, 1979 allowed
D the Writ Petition first~y on the ground that the respondent wa1s given
no opportunity to show cause before action was taken against him
and secondly on the ground that the University did not apply its
mind to the question whether the• petitiioner's perfo11mance was
unsatisfactory. The High Court quashed the order removing the
respondent from the rolls of the University and gave the following
E directions to the University :
"(1) That the petitioner B. S. Narwal should be admitted
in the 7·th semester which is the monsoon 15emester of 1979;
(12) that the petitioner should be permitted to complete
the ten semesters by the end of the academic year 1981 so as to
F qualify 'him to get his M.A. Degree;
~3) that the petitioner should be permitted tc> secure the
required 180 credi'ts by the encl of the academic year 1981 and
to make up the deficiency in the credits he has secured so far
by taking up the contact hours, sessional tests and semester exami- •
· nations of the appropriate semester before the completion of .
his 10th semester;
(4) tl:)at .the University shall permit the petitioner to join '-1
the appropriate groups· for taking up the required courses and
make proper arrangements of sessional tests and semester exami-
nations at reasonable intervals so as not to crowd too many
H academic requirements at one time".
The first question for our consideration is whether the respon·
dent was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before action
, I

1AWAHARLA~HRU UNIVERSITY v. B. s:.NARWAL (Chitmappa Reddy, J.)1623

w,as taken removfog him from the roll~ of the _Urii\Tersity. What
should be mentioned right at the outset is that this is not a case of
expulsion of a studen~ pursuant' to a clainl, by 'th,e authorities' of -
a University ,to . discipline the student _'at their discretion ·and the
right of the student, to _freedom ,and justice. The case is merely
<me of assessment of the academic performance of a student which ,
the -prescrlbed a~thorities of the , University are best qualified and ·
th,e Courts perl;iaps, are least qualified to judge. · Nor can. there be
any question of any opportunity to be _heard being given. One
does not hear of a claim to be heard when a candidate fails to qualify '
. at an aptitude or intelligence test, written or oral. When duly
qualified and' competent' academic authorities examine and assess
the work of. a student over a period of time and declare his work
to be unsatisfactory we are unable to see how any question of a
right to be heard can arise. The duty of an aca.demic body in such
a case is 'to form an unbiased assessment of the student's standard
of work based on the entirety of hi_s record and potential(1). That is
their function. The very nature of the function of academic adjudica-
tibn (if the use of the word adjudication iJs permissible in the con- ·
text) appears to us to negative any right to an opportunity to be
heard. If the assessment by the academic body permitted the
consideration of · 'non-academic' circumstances also, a right to be
heard may be implied. But if the assessment is confi!ned to academic ·
performance, a right to be heard may not be so implied. Of E-
course, if there are allegations of bias or malafides different conside-
rations might prevail, but in the absense of allegations of bias or
malafides we do not think that the declaration by an academic body
that a student's academic performance is unsatisfactory, is liable to
be questioned in a Court on the ground that _the student was not
given an opportll!I1ity of being heard. Large and expanding, perhaps F·
rightly, as the field of natural justice and fail dealing is, neceslsary
and wholesome as 'hearing' an affected partly even by academic
bodies is, , there are limits to attempt at unnatural extensions of
the doctrine of 'audi alteram partem'. Without granting absolutism
to academic authorities even in academic matters, we think this
G
case hardly calls for judicial intervention.

The learned Counsel for. the respondent relied on Regine v.
Aston Un~versity Senate(2) to contend that the examining body of the
University was bound to give an opportunity to a student before
requiring him to withdraw from the University consequent on his H
(1) Herring v. Templeman & Ors. -1973 (3) All E.R. 569 @ 584.
(2) [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1418=1969(2) All E.R. 964.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R. ·

A failure in the examination.. Admittedly, in that caise, tb.e examiners
took into 1c<>nsideration a "wide range of extraneous factors some of
which their very nature, for example, personal and family problems
might only lJave been known to the students themselves". Therefore,
Donaldson J., observed that in common fairness the students should
have been given an opportunity. Even so, Lord Parker C. J., did
B not appear to be convinced about the correctness of Donaldson J's
view and in Herring v. Templeman & Ors. (]supra), the Court of
Appeal expressed the view that Donaldlson .J's opinion required
reconsideration on some suitable future occasion.

.c From the earlier narration of facts it would be seen that the
respondent had not cleared any of the core coursei; in the first
three semesters. If a candidate for the M.A. degree ill a certain
discipline fails to clear any single core course in that discipline in .
the firnt three semesters, surely, no one can c<>mplain that the
academic body which has declared the academic performance of the
D candidate as unsatisfactory has acted arbitrarily m so declaring.
The complai.n.t of the respondent, however, was that he was unable
to 1 clear the 'core courses' in the first two semesters because the
University au1thorities failed to provide teachers to take clas.ses and
this was a factor which the authorities ·of the Universi'.ty had failed
to consider and the authorities must, therefore, be held not to have
E applied their minds.· It appears that in the very first semester the
respondent joined the University late and missed several classes.
The result was that while the rest of the students liad made :,..._
suffici'ent progress in Russian language the respondent who liad yet
to learn the alphabet could not straightaway join the rest of the
students attending the core courses. The, therefore, had to attend
F
pther classes in Russian language where Russian language was taught
not as a 'core subject' but as a 'tool or optional subject'. According
to the respondent there was none to teach Russian language to his
grpup between October 6. 1974 and December 6, 1974. ,Again, in
the second semester, though there were Russian classes from 10th
G February to 30th Mardi, 1975, there were no arrangements to
teach Russian language to his group after 30th March. The
High Court appeared to attach great importance to the faiilure of
the Universjty to expressly deny the respondent's aUegation that ·
there were no teaching facilities between October 6 and December 6,
l97~ and again between 10th February and 30th March, 1975.
H· True the University did not in express terms deny tlie allega~ioms.
But the Un~versity did mention the following facts in their counter
affidavit. In pa11agraph 5 it was said." ·
.. : fAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY v. B. s. NARWAL. (Chinnappa Reddy, :J.) 625

"He joined the first semester on 22nd of August 1974 ,'A
although it started from 9th August 1974. So much so he was
to be grouped together with, students who had offered Russian
as a non-core subject and for whom the Russian classes happened
to be sta!'ting from 1st September. Again,· from 8th October
1975 to 20th December 1975, he was not. regular in attendance.
How could the respondent University afford a special curriculum :. B
for the sake of a particular student who does not avail of the
regular course of teaching provided by the Univerisity ·to ·a
class of students? It was no fault of the University if the
petitioner could not attend the classes when they were conducted,
-and the petitioner should be blamed for his irregular attendance". C

Again in paragraph 9 it was said :
"In reply to paragraph 9, I say that the petitioner did not
.join the course on 9th August 1974 when the classes for
Russian as a core subject commenced. When the Petitioner
D
came on 22nd August 1974 to join the course, the students
who had offered Russian as a core subject and start~d their
classes on 9th August, had made substantial progress. The
Petitioner: being a beginner in Russian language, could not be
accommodated in any of those groups. He had, therefore, to
be grouped together wi.th students who had offered Russian E
classes happened to be starting from September 1."

These statements show that the University did run the neces-
-sary classes for the 'core courses' but the Respondent was unable
to take advantage of them on account of his insufficient knowledge
of Russian, for which reason he had to attend classes for 'optional' F
courses instead of cfasses for core courses. The University naturally
-could not run a special programme for an individual student. These
sflatements went unnoticed by the High Court. We are, therefore,
of the view that the finding of the High Court that the authorities
·of the University were oblivious of the circumstance that the Univer-
sity itself .had failed to provide teaching facilitiies in Russian and G
the!'efore. must be considered not to have applied their minds is
without factual foundation.
We ·have, therefore, no option but to allow the appeal and
dismiss the Writ Petition filed by tjle Respondent. We may add
that we would not, in any case, have confirmed the directions given H
by the High Court, as they appear to involve a virtual re-writing
<lf .the Ordinances of the University. While allowing the appeal,
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C:R.

·. A . we leave it to the University, to consider if the career of the respon-
dent cannot be salvaged by admitting him into some appropriate
semester in accordance with the c)rdinances, if he chooses to submit ,.l
an lljpplication fur admission. There will be no order regarding
· co~ts .
.B Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1926 of 1980 is dismissed.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed

I

•·.

. '