{"id":270636,"date":"1998-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998"},"modified":"2018-12-03T08:43:05","modified_gmt":"2018-12-03T03:13:05","slug":"naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Joseph<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C Joseph<\/div>\n<p id=\"p_1\">JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Cyriac Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> 1.     The petitioner qualified for admission to the 4 years course of  B.Sc. Engineering  conducted by Respondent No.1 and was admitted to the 1st  year of  B.Sc.  Engineering  (Civil) in the academic sessions  of  1989-90.  For various reasons the petitioner could not attend classes regularly and  pass in  all the examinations. Consequently by the end of the  academic  session 1995-96  he  had cleared only 7 papers out of 9 papers of  part.  III  (3rd year).  According to the petitioner though he had to clear two more  papers of  part  III (3rd year) he was entitled to be promoted to the  final  year during the academic session 1996-97. The petitioner attended the classes of final year (part IV) during the academic session 1996-97 and also  appeared in  the  sessional test and passed the same. However, when  the  petitioner went  to fill up the examination form to appear in the examination  of  two papers of part III and all the papers of part IV in the annual examinations of  1997 he was not allowed to fill up the form on the ground that  he  had not completed the B.Sc. Engineering course and pass the examination  within the  stipulated  period of 7 years. According to the  University  the  time limit  of 7 years expired in the case of the petitioner at the end  of  the academic  session 1995-96 and he should have cleared  the  B.Sc.Engineering course  in  the annual examinations of 1996. Though the petitioner  sent  a representation  dated  2.4.1997 to the Vice Chancellor Office, it  was  not considered  for more than three months. Ultimately it was forwarded to  the office  of  the  Controller of Examinations on  15.7.1997,  therefore,  the petitioner was told that the petitioner would not, be allowed to take final examination  of 1997. According to the petitioner he sent a further  representation  dated  22.7.1997 to the office of the  Vice  Chancellor  seeking permission  to  appear  in the annual examination of 1997 but  he  did  not receive any reply. Feeling frustrated and dejected the petitioner left  for his  native  town Itawa in Uttar Pradesh State. He came back  to  Delhi  on 30.5.1998 and came to know that a number of students who had not  completed the  B.Sc. Engineering course within the stipulated period of 7 years  were permitted to appear in the compartmental examination in 1997 in view of  an order  dated 19.12.1997 passed by the High Court of Delhi.  The  petitioner also came to know that the students who could not complete their course  by appearing in the compartmental examination in December 1997 due to lack  of notice  were  allowed  to appear in the final examination of  1998  as  per notice dated 26.12.1997 of the respondent University. It is stated that the petitioner  had  no information or knowledge about the  said  notice  dated 26.12.1997  hence  he could not appear in the annual examination  of  1998. Thereupon the petitioner sent a representation dated 2.6.1998 to the Office of  the Vice Chancellor seeking permission to appear in  the  compartmental examination  of 1998 scheduled to be held in the month of  August\/September 1998. Since the petitioner did not receive any reply to the said  representation he filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">      i)   Declare the Regulation 1(10) First Ordinance) of the University  which prescribe 7 Years Time Limit for  completion  of        the  course of B.Sc. Engineering as null and  void,  illegal and inoperative; and or   \n \n\n      ii) issue  a  writ  of mandamus or any  other  appropriate  Writ    order\/direction  commanding  the respondents  to  allow  the petitioner  to  appear in the examination of two  papers  of part III (3rd year) namely CE-301 Structural Analysis-II and CE-312  Numerical Analysis and Computer  Programming  (NAPC) and  all the papers of Part-IV (Final Year) in the  compartmental examination of 1998.  \n \n\n      iii) And  pass any other or further order(s) which  this  Hon'ble    Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.  \n \n\n 2.   In  support of the first prayer in the writ petition the  only round \nraised by the petitioner is that the impugned Ordinance prescribing maximum \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_2\">time  limit of 7 years for the completion of B.Sc. Engineering course  suffers from the voice of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and  discriminatory inasmuch  as most of the Universities do not prescribe any time  limit  for the completion of the B.Sc. Engineering course and MBBS course. The submission  of the petitioner that most of the Universities do not prescribe  any time  limit for the completion of B.Sc. Engineering course and MBBS  course is  disputed  by the respondents in their reply to the show  cause  notice. Even  otherwise the petitioner has only stated that &#8220;most of the  Universities&#8221; do not prescribe any time limit. Even assuming that some of the other Universities do not prescribe any time limit for completion of B.Sc.  Engineering  course  is not a ground for declaring the  impugned  Ordinance  as arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. Each University is competent  to make its own rules and regulations with regard to the courses conducted  by the said Universities. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in stipulating  that  a student admitted to a 4 years course  should  complete  the course  within a maximum period of 7 years. In my view; such a  stipulation will  only help to maintain the standard and quality of education and  also to maintain discipline in the educational institutions. By such stipulation the students will be compelled to be regular in their studies as well as in appearing  in  the examinations. If the experts of the  Universities  found that such a stipulation was necessary this Court cannot sit in appeal  over the  judgment and decision of the experts on such academic  matters.  Since the  provision in the impugned Ordinance is applied to all the students  of B.Sc. Engineering course in the respondent University, there is no discrimination  involved in the application of the said provision. Hence there  is no  merit  in the petitioner&#8217;s challenge against  regulation  1(10)  (First Ordinance)  of the University and the first prayer in the writ petition  is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\"> 3.   Regarding  the  second prayer for a direction to  the  respondents  to allow the petitioner to appear in the compartmental examination of 1998  it should  be pointed out that in the light of the judgment of this  Court  in Naseem  Ahmed &amp; Others Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; others, Civil Writ  Petition  No.4318\/97 and connected cases the petitioner is not entitled to  the said  relief. Admittedly as per the provisions of regulation 1(10)  in  the First Ordinance of the University the petitioner is not entitled to  appear in  the  compartmental examination of 1998 since the maximum  period  of  7 years  expired  in  his  case at the end of 1998.  In  the  judgment  dated 19.12.1998 in Naseem Ahmed &amp; Others (supra) it was held that in exercise of the  discretionary  jurisdiction under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the  Constitution  of India  this  Court cannot prevent the respondent University  from  strictly adhering  to  the rules or from correcting a mistake occurred  due  to  the unauthorised  actions  of some authorities of the University. It  was  also pointed out that in the prevailing circumstances of the respondent University the determination and zeal of the Vice Chancellor to strictly  enforce the rules and regulations and to restore discipline, order and normalcy  in the campus deserve appreciation and support. This Court expressed the  view that  the Court should refrain from any interference which would  prejudice the efforts of the Vice Chancellor and the other authorities of the University  &#8220;to bring and restore the glory of the institution&#8221;.  Therefore,  the petitioner has no legal right to appear in the compartmental examination of 1998  and this court cannot compel the respondent University to  ignore  or violate the provisions in the Ordinance.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\"> 4.   However, this Court while dealing with CWP 4318\/97 and connected cases requested the learned counsel for the University in case of the petitioners therein that in view of the certain circumstances mentioned in paragraph  9 of  the  judgment in those cases. After consulting the  University  learned counsel  for  the  respondents submitted that in case  of  the  examination already  held results could be declared and in other cases  the  petitioner could be permitted to appear in the compartmental examination commencing on 24.12.1997 as a one time concession. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents this Court directed that in case  where the petitioners had already appeared in the final examination in 1997 their results may be declared on or before 22nd December, 1997 and if any of them had  failed  in the said examination he may be permitted to appear  in  the compartmental  examination  commencing on 24.12.1997, and  result  of  such examination  also may be duly declared. In case where the petitioners  were prevented  from  appearing  in the final examination of 1997  they  may  be<br \/>\nallowed to appear in the compartmental examination commencing on 24.12.1997 and  their results may be duly declared. It was further directed  that  the concession made by the respondents in the case will not constitute a precedent  and that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim  any  further extension  of time to complete the course and pass the examination  on  the basis  of  the indulgence shown by the University. Pursuant  to  the  above mentioned judgment the University issued Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997 extending  the concession not only to the petitioners before the Court  but also  to  similarly situated other students also. The University  went  one step  further and said in Annexure-E notice that in case owing to  lack  of notice  some candidates were not able to participate in  the  compartmental examination  in December 1997 they would be allowed clear their  papers  in the  final examination to be held in 1998. However, the petitioner did  not avail  of the above concession extended by the University. Neither  did  he appear in the compartmental examination in December 1997, nor did he appear in  the annual examination held in April 1998. Thus even as per the  notice dated  26.12.1997 the petitioner is not entitled to appear in the  compartmental examination in 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\"> 5.   According  to  the petitioner he was not aware  of  Annexure-E  notice dated  26.12.1997 as he had left Delhi for his native place in  U.P.  State and  he came back to Delhi only in May 1998 and consequently he  could  not appear  in  the examination in April 1998. Having failed  to  complete  the course  within the stipulated period the petitioner apparently gave up  his studies  and went back to his native place without questioning the  action, of the respondents or the provision in the Ordinance. He also did not  keep in touch with the University or his fellow students to know further  developments.  If the petitioner could not avail of the concession given by  the University  in the light of the judgment of this court the fault lies  only with him and not with the University. The petitioner has no legal or  moral right  to  demand that the University should extend further  concession  to him.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\"> 6.   Learned  counsel for the petitioner contended that  Annexure-E  notice dated 26.12.1997 was not communicated to the petitioner and that it was not published  in the newspapers. After all the University was  only  extending some  concession to the students in view of the judgment of this Court  and the  matter was published in the University. In the circumstances  of  this case  I  am of the view that the University was not  bound  to  communicate Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997 to individual student like the petitioner  or to publish the same in the newspapers. If the petitioner was  interested  in completing the course he should have kept in touch with the  University  or his fellow students. The petitioner has belatedly come to  this Court  knowing  that  some of the students got the  benefit  of  Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\"> 7.   Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that S\/Shri Adil  Iqbal and  Mohd. Moin were allowed to appear in the B.Sc. Engineering  course  in the  annual examination of 1997 though they have also not  completed  their B.Sc.  Engineering  course within the stipulated time of 7  years.  It  was explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that they were allowed to appear in the examination in view of the concession mentioned above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 Author: C Joseph Bench: C Joseph JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner qualified for admission to the 4 years course of B.Sc. Engineering conducted by Respondent No.1 and was admitted to the 1st year of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-270636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-03T03:13:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T03:13:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1878,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T03:13:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-03T03:13:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T03:13:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998"},"wordCount":1878,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998","name":"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T03:13:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-chand-vs-jamia-millia-islamia-others-on-1-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naresh Chand vs Jamia Millia Islamia &amp; Others on 1 August, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}