The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench dismissed a 23-year-old law student’s plea against being barred from final exams due to poor attendance. The Court criticised her claims as reckless and irresponsible, observing that legal proceedings must be based on good faith and not personal demands.
The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench, comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Ajit Kadethankar, dismissed a 23-year-old law student’s challenge to the decision barring her from appearing for her final examinations due to poor attendance. The court criticised her “reckless and irresponsible” assertions and remarked that legal action must be rooted in good faith, noting that justice is not “whatever I want and howsoever I put it”.
In its judgment dated June 18, the bench held that the student’s efforts to correct her own shortcomings through false claims amounted to an “abuse of process,” potentially harming her prospects in the legal profession. The court emphasised that any matter brought before a court must be bona fide, stating:
“Every proceeding before a court is to seek justice; but the concept of ‘justice’ doesn’t mean ‘whatever I want and howsoever I put it’,”
ALSO READ: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance: Delhi High Court
The petitioner, a postgraduate student at the Maharashtra National Law University in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, had approached the court after the university barred her from the final semester exams for failing to meet the 75% attendance requirement. After a single bench rejected her initial petition in April, she filed a review petition seeking a direction for the university to conduct a special examination.
In the review petition, she claimed there had been errors in the attendance calculation and alleged that the college had arbitrarily granted extra attendance to some students. She also argued that the university failed to properly consider her medical difficulties. The university opposed her plea, stating that her attendance was only 45%, and that had she reached at least 67% attendance, she would have received additional attendance consideration after due review.
The university further submitted that the student did not attend a hearing before the Grievance Redressal Committee, where she had raised her application prior to moving the court. Instead, after the committee rejected her request, she challenged that decision as arbitrary. The court declined to accept her claim that concessions were offered to other students, describing it as hearsay and noting that she produced no evidence to support it.
The bench said it was clear the petitioner had not attended semester lectures as required for the mandatory attendance policy, and that she failed to establish grounds for review. While observing that it was not only disappointed with her audacity but also concerned, the court said it was troubled by the way she had pursued the matter.
The bench stated that, given her age and stage of learning, her approach was particularly alarming, adding:
“At such a stage of professional career, if appearance before the Courts of Law is meant and taken up in any undisciplined scurrilous way and without clean hands, then we are seriously concerned about the professional career of the new entrants in this noble field. This is high time that we must deprecate such practice,”
Although the bench indicated it was seriously tempted to impose heavy costs, it refrained from doing so since she was still a student.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE