The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the appointment of Professor Yogesh Singh as Vice-Chancellors (VC) of the University of Delhi (DU)..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea noting that it was filed based on news reports."Newspaper reports are not Bhagwad Gita," the Court remarked while dismissed the plea with costs.The Court further said that the plea made several reckless allegations and because the President of India was involved in the matter, the petitioner will have to face the consequences.“We will not permit you to withdraw it [the petition] when the President of India is involved… The kind of reckless allegation you have made in your petition... Based on newspaper clippings you have filed a PIL so you have to face the consequences," CJ Satish Chandra Sharma remarked..The plea was filed by an organisation, Forum of Indian Legists stating that Singh was appointed to the VC post in violation of rules. The counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a news report which said that only Singh’s name was sent to the visitor (President of India) for consideration.The case was first taken up for hearing in the morning. The Bench asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee about the panel of names sent to the President. Mehta the said that the government will file an affidavit on the same by lunch. When the case came up for hearing in the post-lunch session, Mehta told the Court that an affidavit has been filed and it shows that five names were sent to the President. The SG also argued that the petitioner has come to Court nearly two years after Singh’s appointment. .As the petitioner’s counsel again referred to the news report, the Bench remarked that “news reports are not Bhagwad Gita” and the affidavit filed by the government clearly showed that five names were sent to the President.The counsel then prayed for withdrawal of the petition. However, the Bench said that it will not allow withdrawal and imposed costs.“Dismissed with costs,” the Court ordered.