Delhi University offers rescheduled exam for Law students over Bakrid

NEW DELHI: Delhi University on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that students of its Faculty of Law who would be observing Eid-ul-Zuha (Bakrid) on May 28 would be allowed to take a separately rescheduled examination after July 4.

The assurance was given before Justice Jasmeet Singh during the hearing of a plea filed by a law student challenging the University's decision to continue examinations on May 28 despite the Centre declaring the day a public holiday on account of Eid-ul-Zuha (Bakrid).

Recording the submission made on behalf of the University, the Court directed that concerned students shall inform the Dean, Faculty of Law, through email if they wish to avail the rescheduled examination.

The Court also directed that the fresh examination date be communicated to such students through email at least one week before the exam.

The petition was filed by Saif Rashid Saeed, a VI Semester student of the Integrated Law Course at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

The student had challenged an Office Memorandum dated May 25, 2026, issued by Delhi University declaring May 28 as a holiday for Eid-ul-Zuha while simultaneously stating that examinations would continue according to the already-notified schedule.

The plea specifically sought postponement and rescheduling of the "Public Policy and Administration" examination scheduled for May 28 for VI Semester Integrated Law Course students.

In the petition, the student argued that the Government of India had shifted the Bakrid holiday from May 27 to May 28 through an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The plea also referred to the Supreme Court of India shifting its holiday to May 28 and preponing matters listed for that date to May 27.

Reference was also made to the National Testing Agency postponing CUET (UG) 2026 examinations scheduled on May 28 in view of Eid-ul-Zuha.

The petitioner contended that continuing examinations on the festival day was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution, as students were effectively forced to choose between appearing in examinations and participating in religious observance with their families.

( With ANI inputs )