ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday dismissed the petition filed by students of Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU) against the university administration’s decision to cancel the summer session and order them to vacate of hostels, declaring the plea inadmissible.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro announced the reserved judgement, stating that QAU is an autonomous institution established under the 1973 Act and possesses full authority to determine its academic, administrative, and disciplinary policies.

The court emphasised that the decisions made by the university’s Syndicate — including those regarding summer classes and hostel arrangements — fall within its internal jurisdiction.

“The matter pertains to internal administration,” the court observed. “There is no evidence of violation of any fundamental right or legal provision that could justify intervention under Article 199 of the Constitution.”

During the hearings, students, along with their legal representatives, argued that the summer session had already been announced and fees were collected. They contended that its sudden cancellation would negatively affect students’ academic progress. The students’ counsel questioned why all students were being penalized for the actions of a few.

In response, the university registrar explained that over 1,100 students were residing in hostels without authorisation, and many had not cleared their dues. He also referred to a previous incident in which a university hostel was set on fire, stating that FIRs had to be registered due to security concerns.

Justice Soomro, during the hearing, had expressed concern over the treatment of students. “Children should be studying, not handcuffed. Are you parents? Do parents treat their children like this?” he remarked, while also stressing the importance of resolving such matters through institutional dialogue rather than litigation.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the issue at hand was a dispute between the university administration and certain students — a matter best handled within the university’s administrative framework. As no legal or constitutional violation had been demonstrated, the court ruled that it had no grounds to intervene.

Published in Dawn, July 20th, 2025