$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010078672022 + W.P.(C) 3176/2022 & CM APPL. 9243/2022 APEKSHA PRIYADARSHINI & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Adv. Anoushka Srivastava versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. Vasanth Rajasekharan, Advs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “a) Issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other writ of like nature or direction/directions and order or orders, thereby, quashing the order(s) of the Appellate Authority of the Respondent University dated 16th November, 2021 [i.e. impugned Order(s)] and consequently the Order(s) dated 08th October, 2021, which Order(s) were upheld by the impugned Order(s), being non-speaking, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India....” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent University had 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 17/08/2026 at 11:59:41 issued a circular dated 20.07.2019 that any person violating the instructions contained in the aforesaid circular shall be liable for penal action under the provisions of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007. 3. The Security Department of the respondent University submitted a report stating that the some of the students were defacing the walls of the academic buildings. The aforesaid report contained the names of all three petitioners as well. 4. The petitioners were served upon show cause notices and after considering their replies were found guilty of violating the University rules and a fine of Rs. 6,000/- each was imposed on all three petitioners vide orders dated 08.10.2021 of the Proctorial Committee. 5. The orders of the Proctorial Committee imposing fine were also challenged before the Appellate Authority i.e., the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, wherein the appeals were dismissed on 16.11.2021 and the orders dated 08.10.2021 were upheld. Hence, the present petition. 6. Ms. Srivastava, learned proxy counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent University in the show cause notices themselves had decided and determined the guilt of the petitioners and the inquiry conducted pursuant thereto was not a free and fair inquiry. 7. It is further stated that the Appellate Authority has failed to take into consideration the fact that the show cause notices were based on the security report, the findings of which have never been established/proved and the petitioners were never given a chance to cross-examine the security personnel. Hence, the entire procedure is 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 17/08/2026 at 11:59:41 arbitrary and malafide. 8. It is further stated that the Proctorial Committee was unable to establish the fact of damaging and defacing of any property by the petitioners and hence, the orders are bad in law and deserve to be set aside. 9. I have perused the counter-affidavit and heard learned counsel for the respondent University. 10. As per the counter-affidavit, video evidences were duly shown to all the petitioners and same is duly admitted in the replies to the show cause notices. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- “D. That video evidences were shown to Ms. ApekshaPriyadarshini. Based on her deposition, a Show cause notice was issued to her 11th May 2018. That Ms. ApekshaPriyadarshini submitted her show cause notice reply on 18th May 2018 which was not found satisfactory and accordingly a fine of Rs. 10,000 was imposed with a strict warning not to repeat such indiscipline activity in future. ... PARAWISE OBJECTIONS: ... 4. Reply to para 4 Available video/audio was shown to the petitioner. ... 7. Reply to Para 7 Petitioner was shown all the available video/audio in the 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 17/08/2026 at 11:59:41 Office of the Chief Proctor. . . .” 11. Even in the petition, it has not been averred that the petitioners did not deface the property of the University. 12. For the said reasons, I am satisfied that the order of the Proctorial Committee upheld by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. 13. The amount deposited with the Registry shall be released in favour of the respondent University. 14. The petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 5, 2026 / (MS) 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 17/08/2026 at 11:59:41