The Delhi High Court on Monday deferred its hearing till September 30, on a petition challenging the notification issued by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University located in the national capital, pertaining to the retrospective fee hike, amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
The development came after the Division Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh was informed that a similar petition and appeal in respect thereof, have already been decided by the Delhi High Court.
The Bench, while refusing to issue notice, asked the parties to bring on record the orders passed in the earlier petition, as well as the appeal.
Background
The petition has been filed by lawyer and social activist Varun Katiyar, alleging that the notification dated September 7, 2020, whereby the University has raised the fees of 21 unaided educational institutions affiliated to it, is disproportionate, arbitrary and unreasonable.
The plea stated that while the entire nation was facing the financial hardship on account of the global pandemic, the University raised its fees retrospectively in a disproportionate, arbitrary and unreasonable manner.
It further stated that the fees has been increased, despite the fact that there have been neither any on-campus classroom sessions in any of the institutions since last one year, nor have the students availed any services at these institutions, including library and conference facilities.
The plea pointed out that the fees has been raised, despite a letter issued by the University Grant Commission on May 27, 2020, requesting the educational institutions to remain sympathetic with the students on payment of fees. A similar circular to all the centres of legal education in the nation was issued by the Bar Council of India on July 27, 2020.
The plea further pointed out that a representation was made by the Association of Indian Students, a voluntary student organisation run by the petitioner, before the Vice Chancellor of the University on November 4, 2020, requesting him to take appropriate action against the notification.
In light of the above, the petitioner sought declaration of the notification to be illegal and thereby, null and void. In addition, the plea sought restraining the University from taking any coercive action against students failing to pay the fees in lieu of the notification. Furthermore, the plea prays for directing the University to not charge academic fee with retrospective effect from students and refund the fee to those students who have already paid the same.
“The educational institutions are social welfare institutions, whose motive is to do social welfare and not aim at making profits,” read the plea.
It added that the retrospective fee hike by the University curtails the access of students to quality education and depicts that the University is working for profit motive, rather than for departing quality education.