Application disposed of by the Delhi High Court once respondents admitted in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner's suspension was an interim measure, not disciplinary action, and that the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations do not disqualify candidates merely for suspension.
The application stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
ARYAN MAAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Mr Chinmay Dubey, Advocates.
versus
DELHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Singh and Mr. G.K. Pathak, Advocates for R1. Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar and Ms. Anamika Thakur, Advocates for Hansraj College.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R
% 06.05.2025
CM APPL. 24306/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:17:25
“4. That in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the College has made the following admissions, which are of significant importance in the present matter:
4.1. In Para No. ii of the Counter Affidavit under "Preliminary Submissions," it has been admitted that-
"Suspension is not the disciplinary action taken against the Petitioner but only a measure taken by the College to keep the Petitioner away from the mischief range pending enquiry."
4.2. In Para No. vii , it is stated that-
"LCR (i.e., the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations) does not contemplate suspension as a criterion to disqualify a candidate from contesting election."
4.3. In Para No. 25 , the College in its Counter Affidavit submits that suspension is not considered a punishment and is only an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. The foregoing submissions have been backed by judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa v. Bimal Prasad Mohanty [(1994) 2 SCR 51] and Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013 .”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:17:25
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
MAY 6, 2025/ jg
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:17:25
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should dispose of the writ petition based on the responses to the petitioner's concerns regarding suspension being non-disciplinary.
Whether the petitioner's suspension can be construed as disciplinary action under the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations.
Aryan Maan
Delhi University
Vikas Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
