Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar, S/o. Indradev Paswan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19657 of 2024 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 267 of 2025 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 335 of 2025 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 538 of 2025 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1012 of 2025.
Decided On : 19-09-2025
Aryabhatta Knowledge University Act, 2008 – Section 27 – Punishment – Cancellation of admission in M.B.B.S. course and permanent expulsion from University on account of impersonation – Petitioners are young students, pursuing professional medical course, having secured admission on merit and successfully completed substantial part of course – Allegations of impersonation has been levelled against them while taking examination – When it comes to maintenance of academic standards, judicial interference in internal administration of educational institutions should be exercised with great circumspection – Every institution has right to set its own benchmark for achieving discipline in academic matters and is empowered to take appropriate disciplinary action against delinquent students – Rule cannot override Act or Statute nor can it restrict ambit of parent legislation – In context of present case, Rules for Unfair Means, being subordinate legislation framed in exercise of enabling power conferred by Statute, cannot operate to curtail or take away the discretion expressly vested with Vice Chancellor of University under Section 27(d) of Statute to impose one or more punishment enumerated therein – Subordinate legislation is intended to be in aid of and not in derogation of parent Statute – Penalty imposed in present case, cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion is maximum available punishment under rules and no consideration is evident as to whether a lesser, but still deterrent, penalty would meet ends of justice, especially in case of students and first-time offenders – Appeal allowed. (Paras 84, 89, 90 and 94)
Aryabhatta Knowledge University Act, 2008 – Section 27 – Punishment – Cancellation of admission in M.B.B.S. course and permanent expulsion from University on account of impersonation – Doctrine of Proportionality and necessity of a reformist approach – Relevant statute vests discretion with Vice-Chancellor to decide appropriate course of action in disciplinary matters – Such discretion must be exercised in consonance with constitutional mandates and cannot be fettered or nullified by subordinate rules or executive instructions, which cannot override statute itself – In present case, Vice Chancellor failed to exercise such discretion judiciously and mechanically applied punitive provisions without considering reformist possibilities – Main purpose of punishment is to correct fault of student concerned by making him more alert in future and to hold out a warning to other students to be careful, so that they may not expose themselves to similar punishment and approach is that of a parent towards an erring or misguided child – In order not to attract criticism that action is a result of arbitrariness, it has to be ensured that penalty imposed is commensurate with magnitude of fault – Doctrine of Proportionality demands calibrated and balanced response to nature of misconduct – Punishment of permanent expulsion imposed on petitioners, coupled with cancellation of their admission, is an action of extreme severity – Such a measure carries irreversible and enduring penal consequences, forecloses all avenues of reform and extinguishes academic future of young students at a single stroke – Punishment imposed cannot be sustained in its present form – In modification of penalty of cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion from University, petitioners shall remain expelled from University for a period of three years reckoned from date of order of Vice Chancellor. (Paras 96, 97, 101, 106, 109 and 117)
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
Since all these five writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment/order.
2. The petitioners, in all these writ applications, have a common prayer for quashing the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna (herein after referred to as ‘the University’), and communicated by the Controller of Examination of the University, whereby the Vice Chancellor of the University has decided to cancel the admission of the petitioners in M.B.B.S. course and further directed their permanent expulsion from the University.
3. The brief facts involved in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 (Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar v. The State of Bihar and Others) is that the petitioner is a student of 3rd Professional M.B.B.S. Part– II course, at Darbhanga Medical College, Darbhanga. The allegation against the petitioner is that one Aunish Kumar, a student of IGIMS, Patna, appeared in the 3rd Professional MBBS Part–II, 2023 Examination on behalf of the petitioner in the Pediatrics paper. The petitioner thereby committed impersonation.
4. On 04.10.2024, a show cause notice was issued by the Controller of Examination alleging that another student had appeared in the 3rd Professional MBBS Part–II Examination in place of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegation, asserting that he had not appeared in the examination, in question, due to illness.
5. Subsequently, by letter no. 4766, dated 19.10.2024, issued under the signature of the Controller of Examination of the University, the petitioner was directed to appear on 23.10.2024 before the 57th meeting of the Unfair Means Committee. The petitioner appeared on the said date and furnished his written reply, reiterating his earlier stand that, he could not appear in the examination due to illness and stating that the allegation levelled against him was baseless.
6. Upon consideration of the report submitted by the Central Superintendent of the University as well as reply of the petitioner, the Committee held that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to impersonation, which fell under Clause 5.2 (c) of the Rules for Unfair Means, i.e., in respect of the student for whom the impersonator was appearing.
7. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the admission of the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. course and his expulsion from the University.
8. Pursuant to the said decision, the impugned order ,dated 12.11.2024, was issued under the signature of the Controller of Examination of the University, whereby the decision to cancel the admission of the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. course and his expulsion from the University was conveyed to the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College, Darbhanga.
9. The brief facts, giving rise to CWJC No. 267 of 2025 (Afzal Azad v. The State of Bihar and Others) is that the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order, dated 13.11.2024, issued under the signature of the Principal, Sri Krishna. Medical College, Muzaffarpur, whereby, the Principal, acting in furtherance of the order of the Vice Chancellor, cancelled the admission of the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. course to the College and also directed for his expulsion from the College.
10. The petitioner is a student of 3rd Professional MBBS Part–I at Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the 3rd Professional MBBS Part–II, 2023 Examination on behalf of one Brajesh Kumar in the E.N.T. paper, and committed impersonation.
11. Vide letter no. 2503, dated 05.10.2024, issued under the signature of the Controller of Examination of the University, the petitioner was directed to appear before a High-Level Committee in connection with an inquiry in the alleged impersonation committed by him in the 3rd Professional MBBS Part–I and Part–II Examinations, 2023. The petiti
The court emphasized the need for proportionality and discretion in disciplinary matters, stating that harsh penalties like permanent expulsion are disproportionate and should allow for opportunities....
The court established that universities must adopt a reformative approach alongside disciplinary actions to ensure justice and uphold students' rights, emphasizing compliance with principles of natur....
Disciplinary actions in universities must integrate reformative measures alongside punitive measures to ensure justice and uphold the dignity of students.
Universities must balance disciplinary actions with reform opportunities; violations of natural justice render punitive measures legally untenable.
Educational institutions must prioritize reformative measures over punitive actions, ensuring adherence to guidelines and principles of natural justice.
Bank - Look Out Circulars - Liquidity of finances and flow of money is essential for any healthy and growth oriented economy - emphasis is on expression "economic interests of India” or larger public....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
