Summary and Analysis of Sakshi Chauhan vs. Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry & Anr

1. Heading of the Judgment

Sakshi Chauhan vs. Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269 of 2023)
Supreme Court of India | Decided on July 22, 2025
Judges: CJI B. R. Gavai & Augustine George Masih, J.

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for "complete justice" in any case.

• University Grants Commission (UGC) Recognition: Validity of degrees from UGC-recognized institutions.

• Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Accreditation: Relevance in agricultural education admissions.

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Applicant's reliance on original admission criteria.

3. Basic Judgment Details

AspectDetailsPartiesAppellant: Sakshi Chauhan (Student)
Respondents: University & Anr.IssueEligibility for M.Sc admission and subsequent revocation of degree.Lower Court OrdersHimachal Pradesh High Court (Single Bench & Division Bench) rejected appellant’s claim.Supreme Court OutcomeAllowed the appeal; directed the university to restore appellant’s degree.Key ReliefAdmission regularized and degree restored using Article 142.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background

• Sakshi applied for M.Sc/MBA (Agri Business) at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University (Respondent No. 1) in May 2020.

• She held a B.Sc (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University (Respondent No. 2), a UGC-recognized private institution.

• Due to COVID-19, the entrance exam was canceled. Admissions were based on graduation merit (OGPA/marks).

Eligibility Controversy

• The university’s May 2020 Prospectus required a B.Sc degree from a UGC-recognized university (which Sakshi had).

• Later, the university issued addendums (Dec 2020) excluding graduates from:
  Non-ICAR-accredited private universities (even if UGC-recognized).
  Non-State/Central Agricultural Universities.

• Sakshi was declared ineligible based on these changes.

Legal Proceedings

1. High Court: Rejected Sakshi’s writ petition, upholding her ineligibility.

2. Interim Relief: Sakshi was provisionally admitted to M.Sc Environmental Management during the case.

3. Degree Awarded & Withdrawn:
   She completed the course (2020–2023) and received her degree (May 4, 2023).
   After the High Court’s final dismissal (July 19, 2023), the university withdrew her degree (Aug 5, 2023).

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

• Ambiguous Eligibility Criteria: The original Prospectus was unclear. Later addendums caused confusion and unfairness (Para 22).

• Unjust Consequence: Revoking the degree after Sakshi invested 2 years and passed with good marks caused "irreparable loss" (Para 25).

• Article 142 Intervention: Invoked to ensure "complete justice":
  Regularized her provisional admission.
  Restored her degree, declaring the withdrawal invalid (Para 26).

Final Decision

• Sakshi’s admission and degree were upheld.

• High Court orders set aside.

• University directed to reissue her degree (Para 27–28).

Key Takeaways

1. Clarity in Admission Rules: Institutions must define eligibility criteria unambiguously upfront.

2. Protection of Students’ Efforts: Degrees cannot be revoked retroactively if students complete courses in good faith.

3. Article 142 as Equitable Relief: The Supreme Court may intervene to prevent injustice where technicalities cause undue hardship.