Shantanu Das vs University of Mumbai through Its Registrar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shantanu Das vs University of Mumbai through Its Registrar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Alternate prayer granted: Respondent No.1 – University directed to re-constitute the Committee and take a decision on the publication submitted by the Petitioner for approval of the D.Sc. Degree in Electrical Engineering within three months; the Writ Petition to be placed for compliance on 7th September, 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.1 – University should be directed to confer the Degree of D.Sc. on the Petitioner for thesis No.2768 / Submission bearing No.R640 in Electrical Engineering, or in the alternative, to consider and take a decision on the said submission on its own merits as per Ordinance 778.

Court's answer

The Court directed Respondent No.1 – University to re-constitute the Committee and take a decision on the publication submitted by the Petitioner for approval of the D.Sc. Degree in Electrical Engineering within a period of three months (shortening the six-month period suggested by the University).

Ratio / Principle

The alternate prayer in the Writ Petition — that the University consider and take a decision on Submission bearing No.R640 on its own merits as per Ordinance 778 — was granted in the above terms, and the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Coram R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., Order dated 4th May, 2026 in Writ Petition No. 4221 of 2024 (Shantanu Das v. University of Mumbai & Anr.). The Petitioner sought a direction to the University to confer the D.Sc. degree for thesis No.2768, re-submitted on 15th March, 2026 as Submission No.R640 in Electrical Engineering, or alternatively to decide on the submission on its merits as per Ordinance 778. The University's Affidavit-in-Reply recorded that the Research and Recognition Committee had been constituted thrice without completing evaluation. Relying on University of Calcutta v. Dr. Amiya Kumar Chakraborty, (2000) 10 SCC 39 (conferment of a degree being a matter of University privilege), the Court declined to direct conferment, instead granting the alternate prayer: the University was directed to re-constitute the Committee and decide on the publication within three months (rather than the six months offered), with compliance review fixed on 7th September, 2026. Writ Petition disposed of.

11-WP 4221.2024.doc

Kavita S.J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4221 OF 2024

Shantanu Das

…Petitioner

Versus

University of Mumbai & Anr., …Respondents

Mr. Sankalan Das i/b Ms. Pranali Kakade for Petitioner. Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar for Respondent No.1 – University. Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for Respondent No.2 – State.

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATED : 4^th MAY, 2026.

ORDER :

KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV

Digitally signed by KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Date: 2026.05.05 12:05:30 +0530

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 to confer Degree of “D.Sc.” for the thesis No.2768 which was re-submitted on 15th March, 2026 bearing Reference No.R640 in Electrical Engineering on the Petitioner. In the alternative, the prayer sought is to direct the Respondent No.1 to consider and take decision on the said Submission bearing No.R640 made by the Petitioner on its own merits as per the Ordinance 778

1/4

11-WP 4221.2024.doc

within such time as this Court may deem fit and proper.

Mr. Walawalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 – University has tendered an Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of Respondent No.1 – University dated 5^th April, 2025. The said Affidavit-in-Reply is taken on record.

In the said Affidavit it is stated that the Research and Recognition Committee (RRC) for the Board of Studies in Electrical Engineering was constituted on three prior occasions for considering Submission bearing No.R640 made by the Petitioner. The appointing Committee on the first occasion had expressed its inability as one of the Committee members had not responded. Thereafter, one of the Committee members on subsequent occasion had also expressed his inability to evaluate the publication/works submitted by the Petitioner. The Committee appointed on third occasion had not evaluated the publication submitted by the Petitioner for approval of D.Sc. Degree in Electrical Engineering.

Mr. Walawalkar has accordingly stated on instructions that the Committee will be re-constituted and decision will be taken

on the publication submitted by the Petitioner for the approval of

2/4

11-WP 4221.2024.doc

D.Sc. Degree in Electrical Engineering within a period of six months from today.

Considering that the Committee has been constituted on three prior occasions, we consider it appropriate to direct the Respondent No.1 – University to re-constitute the Committee and take decision on the publication submitted by the Petitioner for approval of D.Sc. Degree in Electrical Engineering within a period of three months from today.

The Supreme Court in University of Calcutta and others Vs. Dr. Amiya Kumar Chakraborty¹ , has held that the conferment of the degree by the University is a matter of privilege and no right flows to any party merely because he submitted a thesis. The Syndicate in considering whether to confer a degree is to take a decision on the report made by each of the experts of the Committee to be appointed as per the relevant rules of the University.

The alternate prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is granted in the above terms. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

1 (2000) 10 SCC 39

3/4

11-WP 4221.2024.doc

The Writ Petition shall be placed for compliance on 7^th

September, 2026.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]

[R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

4/4