$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3262/2026 PROF SUJATA ASHWARYA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Advocate with Petitioner in person. versus JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC for JMI with Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Ms. Shweta Singh and Mr. Shiv Chopra, Advocates. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC with Mr. Naveen, GP for R-3, 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 15.04.2026 REVIEW PET. 175/2026, CM APPL. 24270-24271/2026 1. The Respondent University has filed this petition seeking review of the order dated 13th March, 2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3262/2026, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice, Notification constituting a Committee, and Office Order directing submission of a written apology were set aside, with further directions issued for reconsideration of the Petitioner’s grievance in accordance with law. 2. At the outset, this Court must note that the order under review was plainly intended to enable the University to address the matter administratively, in a fair and constructive manner, bearing in mind 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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:14 nature of the grievance raised and the tenor of the directions issued. It was not expected that, instead of proceeding in that spirit, the University would return to the Court seeking review and, in the process, attempt to reopen the controversy by advancing factual assertions and allegations against the Petitioner. That course, by itself, cannot furnish a ground for exercise of review jurisdiction. 3. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, counsel for the Respondent University, submits that the Petitioner had suppressed material facts from this Court, including the existence of adequate sanitation facilities and the remedial steps taken by the University, and that her grievance in that regard already stood redressed. It is further submitted that the disciplinary action earlier taken was limited in character and had no direct nexus with the grievance raised in the writ petition. Mr. Sabharwal submits that the Petitioner is presently on sabbatical leave and, therefore, no continuing prejudice survives so as to warrant any further consideration. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the Petitioner, along with the Petitioner who is present in Court, strongly controverts the submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondent University. It is contended that the directions issued by this Court have not yet been complied with in their true spirit and that the Petitioner may be constrained to seek appropriate remedies in that regard, including proceedings for contempt, if necessary. It is further submitted that the Petitioner being on sabbatical leave does not render the grievance academic, as she continues to visit the University for purposes of research and academic engagement with students. It is, accordingly, urged that the issue concerning access to restroom facilities cannot be diluted or trivialised on that basis. 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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:14 5. This Court finds no ground to entertain the review petition. The submissions urged on behalf of the University do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, nor do they point to discovery of any such matter as would justify reopening the judgment in review. What is sought, in substance, is a re-argument on facts and a reconsideration of issues which either stood concluded by the earlier order or were left to be dealt with by the University in terms of the directions already issued. 6. To the extent the University now contends that the Petitioner’s grievance already stands redressed, that question remains a matter of factual dispute between the parties. The earlier order had already indicated the course to be followed in that regard. If the University has since taken any effective steps in compliance with the directions issued, it is for the parties to work out the consequences of such compliance, in accordance with law. Equally, if the Petitioner maintains that there has been no effective compliance, the remedies available in law remain open. None of this, however, discloses any error apparent on the face of the record or any other circumstance warranting reopening of the judgment. 7. The petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any. SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 15, 2026 nk 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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:14