Students with LLM in one discipline can do it in another at PU: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has opened doors to admission for candidates wanting to do LLM course from Panjab University in one discipline after doing it in another subject from a different varsity.

The ruling by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain came on a petition filed by a candidate, who had done LLM in business law from Kurukshetra University before taking admission in LLM in criminal law from Panjab University.

Taking up the matter, Justice Jain declared patently illegal Panjab University’s action of striking petitioner Raman Deep Kaur Sidhu’s name from the rolls of a college from where she was pursing her studies in LLM in criminal law.

“The action in returning the original documents to her is hereby quashed and direction is issued to Panjab University/respondent to accept the original documents of the petitioner and allow her to continue with her studies in LLM in criminal law,” Justice Jain added.

The court was earlier told by Panjab University counsel that the petitioner’s name was struck off because she had already acquired LLM degree from the Kurukshetra University. He also submitted Regulation 10 of the Regulations squarely covered the petitioner’s case.

Elaborating, he said Regulation 10 of PU Calendar, Volume-II, 2007, provided that “Unless otherwise provided, a person who has already passed an examination of this or any other University shall not be permitted to reappear in that examination or a corresponding examination”.

Justice Jain, however, observed it was apparent that the petitioner has not done LLM in the same subject from varsity other than the Panjab University, for which she could be debarred by the PUJustice Jain ruled the issue involved was regarding interpretation of Regulation 10. Panjab University was offering LLM in two disciplines, constitutional law and criminal law. It was not specifically offering LLM in business law, offered by the Kurukshetra University.

Regulation 10 debarred a student, who has already passed an examination from Panjab University or any other equivalent university, to reappear in that examination or corresponding examination. The word “correspond” was defined in the concise Oxford English Dictionary as “having a close similarity; match or agree almost exactly; be analogous or equivalent”.

“The respondent’s case is that the examination means Masters of Law, whereas the petitioner’s case was that examination means Masters of Law in a particular discipline. Had it been Masters of Law only, the university would not have offered two types of courses, LLM in constitutional law and criminal law….

“It is apparent that she has not studied a single subject of criminal law during that period… all the subjects which have been taught to her are relating to business law…”