We, the undersigned students of RV University, respectfully submit this petition regarding certain provisions introduced in the newly released academic handbook, particularly the requirement of obtaining 80% of the prescribed credits for progression to the next academic year, along with the restrictions imposed on the Summer Semester.

We fully understand and respect the University’s authority to establish and revise its academic regulations. However, we believe that any substantial change in academic progression requirements should be communicated clearly and sufficiently in advance, particularly when it directly affects students who have already commenced the academic year and have made academic and financial decisions based on the regulations communicated to them earlier.

1. Change in the Minimum Credit Requirement for Academic Progression

At the time of our admission and during our academic progression, students were informed and guided under the requirement that approximately 50% of the prescribed credits were required for progression to the subsequent academic year.

Students planned their academic progression, course selections, Summer Semester attempts, and academic workload based on the regulations that were applicable and communicated to us at that time.

However, the newly released handbook now specifies an 80% credit requirement for progression.

The concern is not merely about the percentage itself, but about the timing and manner in which this substantial change has been introduced.

Students had already:

Progressed through the academic year under the previously applicable requirements;
Planned their academic schedules based on the earlier regulations;
Paid the required fees for the upcoming academic year;
Completed the necessary academic formalities for the next academic year; and
Commenced the new academic year, with the academic year having started on 3 August 2026, and students’ names already appearing in the attendance lists.
The new handbook, however, was released only on 10 August 2026, after the commencement of the academic year.

Therefore, students are concerned that applying a substantially different progression requirement after the academic year has already commenced may adversely affect students who had no reasonable opportunity to plan their academic performance according to the newly introduced requirement.

We therefore respectfully request the University to reconsider the applicability of the 80% credit requirement to students who were admitted and progressed under the previous regulations, or alternatively provide an appropriate transitional provision/grandfathering mechanism for existing batches.

2. Change in the Stage at Which First-Year Backlogs Affect Academic Progression

A particularly significant concern relates to the treatment of first-year backlogs under the earlier and newly introduced academic policies.

Under the 2024 academic policy, students understood the progression framework to permit students to continue through the earlier academic years despite eligible backlogs, with the requirement concerning clearance of first-year backlogs being specifically relevant to progression into the final year (4th year).

In other words, the earlier framework did not require a student to clear every first-year backlog merely to progress into the 3rd year. Students were provided an opportunity to continue their academic progression while clearing eligible backlogs through subsequent examinations and/or available academic mechanisms.

The newly released policy, however, appears to introduce a substantially different consequence: a student may be prevented from progressing to the 3rd year itself if the required first-year courses/backlogs have not been cleared.

This represents a significant change in the stage at which a student’s backlog affects academic progression.

For example, under the earlier understanding of the 2024 policy:

First Year → Second Year → Third Year → First-year backlogs required to be cleared before Final Year

Whereas under the newly stated framework, the progression may effectively operate as:

First Year → Second Year → Third Year restricted unless First-year backlogs are cleared

This substantially changes the academic consequences of having a backlog and directly affects students who entered the University under the earlier academic framework.

The concern is therefore not simply about the existence of a backlog. The concern is that the same backlog is now being given a substantially earlier academic consequence, potentially preventing progression into the 3rd year itself.

We respectfully request the University to clarify:

The exact provision in the 2024 policy governing progression with first-year backlogs;
The exact provision in the newly released policy governing progression with first-year backlogs;
When this change was approved;
When it was communicated to existing students;
The student batches to which the revised provision is intended to apply; and
Why students admitted and academically progressing under the earlier framework should be subjected to a substantially different progression consequence without a transitional provision.
We further request that students from existing batches be allowed to continue under the progression framework applicable to their batch at the time of admission, or that an appropriate transitional/grandfathering mechanism be provided.

3. Absence of Clear Prior Notice Regarding Future Changes to the Progression Framework

The 2024 academic policy formed the basis on which students planned their academic progression, backlog clearance, course selections and Summer Semester attempts.

Students respectfully submit that the earlier policy did not, to the students’ understanding, contain any clear provision stating that the University could subsequently introduce a substantially different progression criterion and apply that revised criterion to students from existing batches without prior notice or a transitional mechanism.

Students therefore had no reasonable basis to anticipate that a progression condition applicable at a later stage, such as clearance of first-year backlogs before final-year progression, could subsequently be moved to an earlier stage and used to prevent progression into the 3rd year itself.

If the University intends to amend academic regulations in the future, students respectfully request that such amendments clearly state:

The date on which the amendment was approved;
The effective date of the amendment;
The student batch/year from which it will apply;
Whether it applies to existing students or only future admissions; and
Any transitional or grandfathering provisions applicable to existing students.
This would ensure that students can make informed academic decisions and would prevent substantial changes in progression requirements from unexpectedly affecting students who have already commenced their programme under an earlier framework.

4. Prior and Clear Communication of Changes in Academic Regulations

We respectfully request that any significant amendment to academic regulations—particularly regulations concerning:

Minimum credits required for progression;
Backlog eligibility;
Summer Semester eligibility;
Maximum number of courses/credits that may be taken;
Promotion to the next academic year; and
Graduation requirements
should be clearly communicated to students sufficiently in advance of the academic year/semester to which the amended rules are intended to apply.

Students should not be placed in a situation where a new regulation is made known only after the academic year has already commenced.

For future academic years and semesters, we respectfully request that substantial changes in academic regulations be communicated at least one academic semester or, preferably, one academic year in advance, wherever the change is intended to affect students’ progression or eligibility.

This would provide students with a reasonable opportunity to plan their courses, clear backlogs, register for Summer Semester courses, and make informed academic decisions.

We also request that the University clearly specify the effective date and the batch/year from which every amended regulation will apply in the handbook or official notification.

5. Summer Semester – Restriction to Four Subjects / 12 Credits

We would also like to bring to the University’s attention the current restriction under which students are permitted to register for only four subjects, up to 12 credits, during the Summer Semester.

We understand the University’s objective of maintaining academic standards and ensuring that students are able to manage their academic workload effectively.

However, we respectfully believe that imposing a uniform four-subject/12-credit ceiling may unnecessarily restrict students who are academically capable and willing to take additional courses to clear their academic requirements.

Students have different academic circumstances. Some students may have only one or two backlogs, while others may have a larger number of pending courses. Students who are capable of handling additional courses should be provided with an appropriate opportunity to clear them during the Summer Semester, subject to academic requirements and the University’s examination and course-registration capacity.

We therefore request the University to reconsider the mandatory four-subject/12-credit restriction.

Instead, we request that students be permitted to register for the number of Summer Semester courses they are academically eligible and willing to undertake, subject to reasonable academic safeguards.

For example, the University may consider allowing students to register for additional courses where:

The student satisfies the prerequisites;
The courses are offered during the Summer Semester;
The student is able to meet the attendance/academic requirements;
There is sufficient faculty and examination capacity; and
The University determines that the additional academic workload can be reasonably managed.
This approach would provide students with greater flexibility while still allowing the University to maintain academic standards.

6. No Backlogs for Final-Year Students

We understand and acknowledge the University’s requirement that students should not have pending backlogs at the time of completing the final year/graduation.

We do not object to the principle that students should successfully complete all required courses before graduation.

However, students should be provided with a reasonable and practical opportunity to clear their backlogs before entering the final year, particularly through an adequately flexible Summer Semester system.

This is particularly important because the earlier academic framework understood by students placed the requirement of clearing relevant earlier-year backlogs in connection with progression toward the final year, rather than preventing progression into the 3rd year itself.

Therefore, rather than restricting students to only four Summer Semester subjects or preventing progression at an earlier stage, we respectfully request that students approaching their final year be given sufficient opportunities to clear their eligible backlogs, so that the University’s requirement of having no backlogs at graduation can realistically be achieved.

7. Request for Transitional Protection for Existing Students

The students most affected by these changes are those who have already entered the academic system under the previous regulations.

We therefore respectfully request that the University consider a transitional/grandfathering provision for existing batches.

In particular, students who joined the University under the earlier academic regulations should not suddenly be subjected to a substantially different progression criterion without adequate prior notice.

The University may consider applying the revised 80% requirement and revised backlog-progression provisions to future incoming batches, while allowing existing batches to continue under the regulations applicable to them at the time of their admission, or providing a clearly defined transitional arrangement.

8. Flexible Academic Progression for Students with Backlogs

We respectfully request the University to reconsider the provision under which an uncleared backlog from an earlier academic year can prevent a student from progressing to the subsequent academic year, even when the student has successfully completed the subjects of the intervening/current academic year.

Several established universities, including VTU and BMSCE, provide mechanisms for students to carry forward eligible backlogs while continuing their academic progression, subject to specified credit and course requirements. Other universities also follow credit-based or conditional-promotion systems rather than automatically stopping progression because of every backlog.

We therefore request RV University to consider a more flexible, credit-based progression system, allowing students who have successfully completed the required academic credits to progress while clearing their remaining eligible backlogs through regular, supplementary, or Summer Semester examinations.

At the same time, we understand the University’s requirement that students should have no backlogs for completion of the final degree. Our request is therefore only for reasonable academic progression opportunities and sufficient mechanisms to clear backlogs without unnecessarily delaying a student’s academic year.

Our Requests

In view of the above circumstances, we respectfully request the Vice Chancellor / Registrar and the University authorities to:

Reconsider the newly introduced 80% credit requirement for existing batches and provide an appropriate transitional/grandfathering provision for students who entered the University under the previous progression requirements.
Review the newly introduced treatment of first-year backlogs, particularly where such backlogs are being used to prevent progression into the 3rd year, and clarify how this differs from the 2024 academic policy under which the relevant backlog-clearance requirement was understood to apply before progression to the final year.
Provide the exact provisions of the 2024 policy and the newly released policy governing progression with first-year backlogs, together with the approval date and effective date of the amendment.
Clarify whether the revised backlog-progression requirement applies to existing batches or only future incoming batches.
Provide a suitable transitional/grandfathering mechanism for students who commenced their programme under the earlier academic framework.
Review the four-subject / 12-credit restriction for the Summer Semester and provide students with greater flexibility to register for additional eligible courses according to their academic capacity and willingness, subject to reasonable academic safeguards.
Establish a clear advance-notification mechanism for major changes in academic regulations, with such changes being communicated at least one academic semester or, preferably, one academic year in advance, wherever they are intended to affect students’ academic progression.
Clearly specify the effective date and applicable student batch/year for every major amendment to academic regulations.
Provide a suitable transitional arrangement for students who have already commenced the academic year, particularly where fees have already been paid and students have already commenced attendance under the previous academic framework.
Ensure that students approaching their final year are given adequate opportunities to clear eligible backlogs, while retaining the University’s requirement that students must complete all required courses before graduation.
Consider adopting a flexible, credit-based or conditional academic progression mechanism under which eligible backlogs may be carried forward without unnecessarily preventing students from progressing to the next academic year.
Conclusion

We respectfully submit that students are not opposing the University’s objective of maintaining academic standards. Rather, we are requesting clarity, adequate prior communication, reasonable transition provisions, and academic flexibility so that students are not unexpectedly disadvantaged by regulatory changes introduced after they have already made academic and financial decisions based on the earlier regulations.

In particular, we respectfully request the University to carefully review the significant difference between the earlier framework, under which first-year backlog clearance was understood to be relevant before progression to the final year, and the newly introduced framework, under which such backlogs may prevent progression into the 3rd year itself.

We sincerely request the University authorities to review these concerns in the interest of fairness, transparency, student welfare, and effective academic planning.

We would be grateful if the University could provide an official written clarification regarding:

The applicability of the new 80% credit requirement;
The applicability of the new backlog-progression requirement;
The difference between the 2024 and current academic policies;
The effective date and applicable student batches;
The Summer Semester restrictions; and
The transitional provisions available to existing students.
We hope that the University will give this representation due consideration and take appropriate action in the interests of the students.

Respectfully submitted by:
The undersigned students of RV University