Application Of New Regime To Present Cohort Would Be Arbitrary: Delhi High Court Directs UGC, RCI To Recommence M.Phil. In Clinical Psychology
The Court held that denial of access to M.Phil. amounts to "retrospective withdrawal of a valuable right" accrued under the earlier regime.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that applying the new National Education Policy regime, which discontinued the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) programme, to students already enrolled in undergraduate and postgraduate psychology courses would be arbitrary, inequitable, and violative of the principles of fairness that govern administrative action.
The Court held that denying such students access to the M.Phil. programme amounted to a retrospective withdrawal of a valuable right that had already accrued to them by virtue of their enrolment under the earlier regime, and directed the University Grants Commission and the Rehabilitation Council of India to recommence the programme for this protected cohort from the 2026-27 academic session.
A Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “The abrupt introduction of the new regime, without any workable transitional mechanism, has the effect of completely foreclosing this established route. The consequence is that the students are effectively required to retrace their academic steps by re-enrolling in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in Clinical Psychology, thereby losing years of academic effort and financial investment. Such a requirement is manifestly unreasonable and disproportionate. The denial of access to the M.Phil. programme under these circumstances amounts to a retrospective withdrawal of a valuable right, which had already accrued to the students by virtue of their enrolment under the earlier regime…the application of the new regime to the present cohort of students would be arbitrary, inequitable, and violative of the principles of fairness that govern administrative action”.
“For the said reasons, the new regime will not be applicable to the students presently enrolled in B.A, B.Sc and M.A. (Clinical Psychology) programme or completed M.A. (Clinical Psychology) in 2026 but will be applicable to the Class XII students”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Pragya Narayan appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Parmanand Gaur appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, M.A. (Clinical Psychology) students and graduates from UGC-regulated universities, challenged the discontinuation of the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) programme, contending that the new regime left them without a viable pathway to registration and forced them to repeat undergraduate and postgraduate studies under the RCI framework, extending the qualification process to nine or more years.
Relying on its earlier decision in MAN Mental Health Awareness and Networking Society v. Rehabilitation Council of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 2399/2026, dated May 05, 2026 the Court held that applying the revised framework to students who had already enrolled under the earlier regime was arbitrary and lacked a workable transitional mechanism. It observed that the new regime effectively foreclosed an established pathway, compelling students to lose years of academic effort and financial investment already made.
The Court accordingly held that the new regime would not apply to students presently enrolled in B.A., B.Sc. and M.A. (Clinical Psychology) programmes, or who had completed the M.A. in 2026, while continuing to apply to Class XII students entering under the NEP framework going forward.
Noting that despite its earlier judgment dated May 05, 2026 making these very findings, the UGC and RCI had taken no steps to recommence the M.Phil. programme, the Court directed the respondents to issue a public clarification within four weeks confirming that the new regime would not extend to the protected cohort, to take steps to recognise and recommence the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) programme for such students starting the 2026-27 academic session, and to notify concerned universities to recommence the course within a time-bound manner.
Cause Title: Navya Sharma & Anr. v. University Grants Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5638)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Pragya Narayan, Manuraj Pillai, Advocates.
Respondents: Parmanand Gaur, Senior Counsel, Vibhav Mishra, Megha Gaur, Vinay Kaushik, Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Kritarth Upadhyay, Amulya Dev Mishra, Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Advocates.