Bombay High Court: In a case where an academically excellent student and her two other classmates altered marks on their answer sheets to reflect a higher score, leading to the Institution cancelling her admission for the academic year 2024—25 and barring her from examinations, the Division Bench of M. S. Karnik* and N. R. Borkar, JJ., while disposing of the petition, held that the increased marks would not have affected the petitioners from passing in the present academic year, which weighed with the Court in considering the case differently. Hence, the Court thought it a fit case where past academic record ought to be a factor in considering proportionality of punishment.
The petitioner had contended the punishment was excessive, imposed without a show cause notice, and contrary to the “Rules for Dealing with Malpractice/Unfair Means at Examination for Examination” (‘Rules’) and principles of natural justice.
Background:
The petitioner was a first-year MBA student at the Institution, having previously completed her schooling with a CGPA of 10.00 and junior college with 96.8 per cent, including perfect scores in Mathematics and Economics. She was admitted to St. Stephens College and maintained a CGPA of 8.02.7. At the Institution, she fulfilled academic requirements, maintained a CGPA of 8.23 across Tri-Semester I and II, submitted assignments on time, met attendance criteria, and was selected as Class Representative. She actively participated in college activities and was one of the 60 finalists out of 7000 participants at a Goldman Sachs event.
On 10-03-2025, during answer sheet distribution for the Corporate Finance Mid Term paper, the petitioner, having received 8.5 out of 30 marks, altered her marks along with two classmates by inserting the number “1” in red ink before the original score, increasing it to 18.5. She had already passed the internal examination with 25.5 marks. On 20-03-2025, she was called to appear before the Unfair Means Committee at 3:00 p.m., despite having informed the Institution of her scheduled flight at 3:35 p.m. to represent the Institution at the Goldman Sachs event. The meeting proceeded in her absence, and she submitted a written apology while travelling.
By email dated 24-03-2025, the Institution barred the petitioner from appearing for the examination scheduled the next day. By email dated 25-03-2025, the Institution cancelled her admission for the year and debarred her from scholarships and extra-curricular activities. As a result, she was ineligible for promotion to the second year and required to restart the course, incurring over Rs 3,00,000 in re-admission fees and Rs 10,00,000 in living expenses. Her parents expressed inability to bear the financial burden, affecting her career prospects and educational journey.
The Institution filed an affidavit-in-reply stating the petitioner was guilty of material suppression by not disclosing the appeal decision communicated by an email dated 17-05-2025, which was not challenged and became final. The misconduct was discovered by the professor on 17-03-2025, and the petitioner did not admit to the unauthorised changes when called for explanation. The Institution emphasised its zero-tolerance policy as per the Student Resource Book (2024-25), which prescribes rustication for such misconduct. The petitioner failed to express remorse until confronted, and CCTV footage confirmed she and her classmates were seated together during the session. The Institution submitted that the punishment awarded was already lenient and proportionate to the misconduct.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the Institution was a premier institute in management studies and that the Students Resource Book (2024) provided a zero-tolerance policy toward unethical practices, wherein Clause 7.5.2 prescribed rustication for tampering with answer books. The Court further noted that the petitioner appeared for the Corporate Finance Mid-Term examination on 19-01-2025 and increased her marks, along with her two classmates, by 10, from 8.5 to 18.5, during the paper review session on 10-03-2025 by writing the number “1” in red-coloured pen before the actual marks.
While the Court believed a proper opportunity ought to have been given before any decision was taken, however, since the petitioners admitted to the misconduct in the petition, the Court saw no reason to remit the matter to the Institution for a hearing. The Court observed that the question was whether the petitioner should suffer such disproportionate punishment without considering her excellent academic record, especially as she was at the end of her educational career and on the threshold of entering the job market. The Court noted that the petitioners had secured admission in a prestigious institution based on academic excellence and ought to have been careful not to let years of hard work go to waste due to such misdemeanour.
The Court emphasised that merely because the petitioners showed remorse or sought forgiveness was no ground for being sympathetic to students using Unfair Means if the punishment imposed was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. However, the Court noted that rustication would have been appropriate under the Rules, but the Institution viewed the matter only from the angle of mark tampering without considering the petitioner’s excellent academic record.
The Court observed that the act was a result of fear and lack of judgment, and that even without the increased marks, the petitioner had already passed the internal examination. The Court thus held that the action was impulsive, motivated by job prospects and societal pressure. The Court emphasised that the increased marks would not have affected the petitioner’s academic progression, and held that the act was avoidable, hence, the petitioner should be given one chance. The Court noted the unconditional acceptance of punishment and, though ordinarily slow to interfere, felt constrained to do so under its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Court referred to Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy v. BITS, Pilani, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 150, wherein it was held that education was the most credible and effective mode of restoring self-esteem and enhancing self-worth and by denying opportunities of education to a delinquent student without looking at the possibility of reform, the power to redeem one’s errors and enhance self-worth was taken away from an individual.
The Court, while disposing of the petition, quashed the Institution’s decision and directed it to allow the petitioners to appear for re-examinations held from 25-03-2025 onwards. The Court further directed that they be permitted to attend classes, subject to examination results. After pronouncing the order, the Court rejected the Institution’s request for a stay, which was sought on the ground that admissions for the next academic session had already concluded in July 2025.
[Simran Inderjeet Singh Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 15555 of 2025, decided on 03-09-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice M. S. Karnik
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Aneesa Cheema a/w. Arshil Shah, Smita Durve, Bhairavi P., Yukta P., Yash K. i/b Arshil Shah
For the Respondents: Gaurav Srivastav a/w. Manorama Mohanty, Malika Mondal, Hitanshu Jain i/b S. K. Srivastav & Co., Atul Vanarse, AGP, Rakesh Pathak, AGP
