The Delhi High Court directed the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) administration to not enforce the undertaking on attendance obtained from the students till the petition challenging the mandatory attendance policy is disposed of by the Court.

“Don’t aggravate the issue when the court is seized of the matter“, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul was hearing a contempt petition filed by JNU students Rajamathangi S, Yusuf Indorewala and Noel Mariam George against the University administration for acting in violation of the Court’s order passed on July 16. The July 16 order had directed JNU to not take any coercive action against the students with respect to attendance.

Questioning the need for an undertaking to be signed by the students at the at the time of fresh admissions as well as re-registration, Justice Mridul remarked,

“If the Court holds that the regulation (making attendance compulsory) can be sustained in law, your policy would get enforced. What is the need of an undertaking? We have not asked students to not attend the classes.”

“All is not as it should be. The impression is that both sides are adopting a confrontational attitude. This is not good for the institution.”

The July 16 order was passed by the Court on a writ petition by Kavita Singh, Dean of the varsity’s School of Arts and Aesthetics and others challenging the imposition of compulsory attendance for students from all courses in the University.

Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Akhil Sibal, informed the Court that all the students, whether seeking fresh admission or seeking re-registration in subsequent semesters were required to provide the duly filled and signed admission folios to the University. These admission folios had a pre-checked undertaking stating:

“I, hereby, undertake that I shall abide by the attendance rules of the University. I understand that if I do not fulfill the attendance requirements, the University will take actions as per rules.”

This undertaking was to be submitted by the students, failing which they would face consequences as per the rules of the University.

It was argued that since the undertaking was already ticked/checked and there was no option for the student to agree or in effect provide an undertaking, the students were being coerced to give the undertaking.

As carried in BB