A bench of justices B R Gavai and B P Colabawalla directed the university to file its reply by Thursday (December 14).
It was hearing a petition filed by a law student from the city challenging the university's decision.
The petitioner, Manasi Bhushan, a final year student, had approached the high court earlier last week arguing that the university's decision to prohibit students from using supplements was arbitrary and erroneous.
Her counsel, advocate Vishal Kanade, today told the high court that the university's decision was primarily based on the apprehension that supplementary answer sheets added to the problems faced by the university's new online assessment system.
The university's counsel Rui Rodrigues told the high court that all answer sheet booklets issued by the university have separate bar codes. Since the main answer sheet booklets and the supplement booklets had different barcodes, some confusion occurred during their online assessment and in several cases, students were marked only on their main booklet, or just on their supplement booklet.
Advocate Kanade, however, told the court that the petitioner had sent representations to the university soon after the circular was issued, but she was yet to get any response.
He argued that the university must fix the problems in its online assessment process instead of denying supplements to students.
He said that students, especially those who were studying law, often needed to write longer, more subjective answers, and thus, needed supplements.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content