As per case facts, the respondent, a student in JNU's five-year integrated M.A. program in Russian Language, failed to take sessional tests in core courses during his first two semesters ... and was not allowed to sit for end-semester examinations. Despite being permitted to repeat courses, he failed again. Dissatisfied with his academic performance, the Centre of Russian Studies recommended his removal from the university rolls, which was implemented. The High Court allowed his Writ Petition, ruling that he was not given an opportunity to show cause before his removal and that the university did not properly assess his performance. The university appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the respondent was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before being removed from the rolls of the University based on unsatisfactory academic performance. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that in the absence of allegations of bias or mala fides, an academic body's declaration of a student's unsatisfactory academic performance is not liable to be questioned in court on the ground that the student was not given an opportunity to be heard, as such assessments are best made by the university's prescribed authorities. The Court also found the High Court's observation regarding the university's failure to provide teaching facilities lacked factual foundation.