The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a student enrolled in the five-year LL.B. course, who sought an order directing the university to award her 499 out of 500 marks in her first semester examinations. The student also alleged corruption in the conduct of the exams at the Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. A single-judge bench, led by Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, described the petitioner as a “chronic litigant,” noting that she had filed at least ten petitions between 2021 and 2022, including writs, review applications and special appeals.
It emerged from the court record that the petitioner’s actual marks were only 181 out of 500, not the 499 she claimed. The university’s re-examination verification confirmed this figure. The petitioner had filed an affidavit claiming she had answered certain questions correctly and was entitled to higher marks, but the affidavit failed to identify the specific questions or explain the mismatch between her claim and the official answer-sheet. The court held that mere assertions in an affidavit, without authentic documentation or verification of the answer-sheet, did not support her plea for re-adjudication under writ jurisdiction.
The bench held that the High Court is not equipped to undertake expert question-by-question evaluation in academic matters under writ jurisdiction, particularly when the university’s internal assessment and re-evaluation process remains unchallenged. The court also relied on precedent which emphasises that judicial interference in academic evaluation should be exercised only in cases of manifest error, procedural unfairness or failure of the evaluation mechanism, rather than to re-weigh academic judgments.
As a sanction for what the court deemed frivolous litigation and abuse of process, the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of ₹20,000. The cost amount is to be deposited within fifteen days into the Bank Account of the High Court Legal Services Committee. The court further cautioned the student to focus on her studies and preparation rather than repeatedly approaching the court with unsupported claims of scoring near-perfect marks.
The order highlights the High Court’s reluctance to interfere in academic evaluations absent a cogent showing of irregularity and affirms that the remedy for academic grievances lies primarily within university mechanisms. It serves as a reminder that the courts will not entertain petitions based on speculative or exaggerated claims regarding examination results, especially when the petitioner fails to present verified documentation or demonstration of procedural deficiency.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.