The Allahabad High Court reprimanded a law student for demanding 499 out of 500 marks in her LLB exam, calling her a “chronic litigant” and imposing a Rs 20,000 fine for filing a baseless and assumptive petition.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a recent judgment that underscores the judiciary’s restraint in academic matters, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a law student from Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, who demanded that she be awarded 499 out of 500 marks in her LL.B First Semester examination.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery termed the petitioner a “chronic litigant” and imposed a cost of ₹20,000, directing the amount to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee. The Court firmly reiterated that courts should be slow to interfere in academic evaluations conducted by experts.
ALSO READ: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance: Delhi High Court
Case Background
The case was filed by a five-year LLB student who appeared in person before the Court. She claimed that she was wrongly awarded only 182 marks and alleged corruption within the University’s examination system.
The petitioner urged the Court to direct the University to award her full marks (100 in each subject), asserting that her performance deserved 499 out of 500 marks.
However, the University, following the Court’s directions, conducted a re-evaluation of her OMR answer sheets, which revealed that she had actually secured only 181 marks.
Court-Ordered Re-evaluation and Findings
In compliance with the High Court’s order dated January 16, 2025, the University formed a three-member committee, including the Head of the Law Department and two senior professors.
The committee’s report dated February 22, 2025, confirmed that a detailed, question-by-question verification had been carried out and that the student’s total marks stood at 181/500.
The petitioner responded with an affidavit and various documents to challenge the report, but failed to substantiate her claims with verifiable evidence.
ALSO READ: Bombay HC Rejects PIL on Law Students Skipping Classes for Internships in Mumbai
Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that the student’s demand for 499 marks was “based on an assumption without any basis whatsoever.”
The Court emphasized that it cannot act as an expert to re-evaluate every question or answer under its writ jurisdiction. It noted that the petitioner’s affidavit did not mention which specific questions were wrongly marked or the source of her claimed correct answers.
Quoting from Supreme Court precedents, including
- Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2020) and
- Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018),
The Court reaffirmed that sympathy or compassion cannot influence judicial decisions in examination matters.
“Court cannot act as an expert to undertake such exercise to examine every question and answer marked by petitioner under writ jurisdiction,”
the Bench stated
During the final hearing, the petitioner reportedly disturbed the proceedings repeatedly and even asked the judge to recuse himself. Justice Shamshery refused and issued strict oral observations on her conduct.
Finding no irregularity in the University’s re-checking process, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed a ₹20,000 cost to discourage frivolous litigation.
Concluding the order, the Bench advised:
“The petitioner should concentrate on her study so that she may get more marks by her honest preparation and she may not approach this Court again.”
Appearance:
Petitioners: In Person
Respondent: C.S.C., Rohit Pandey
Case Title:
Santosh Kumari Versus State of U.P. and 3 others
WRIT – C No. – 20427 of 2024
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Law Students
