Student Must Be Caught 'Actually Using' Cheating Material For Major Penalty: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court modified the punishment of a law student who was accused of cheating inside a urinal, after noting that he was entitled to benefit of doubt as nothing was shown to prove that he was found 'actually using' the material for cheating and so the penalty of cancelling all his papers in the semester was disporportionate.
It was alleged that the petitioner while appearing for the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Examination, proceeded to the washroom, following which one professor, who came to the washroom allegedly found the petitioner cheating from a slip while using the urinal. The university had as punishment, debarred the petitioner from appearing in any examination at the university, till the end of the following semester.
The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Review Committee, vide email dated 13.05.2025, modified the punishment awarded to the petitioner from clause 'C' to clause 'B', i.e. the cancellation of all papers undertaken by the candidate in the current semester. Against this the petitioner moved the high court.
In the meanwhile, the respondent university has declared the result of the petitioner in all subjects, except for the subject where the petitioner was alleged to have used unfair means i.e. LB-104 (BNS).
Justice Jasmeet Singh referred to the exam guidelines and perused the inquiry report and said that as per the inquiry report, no statement of the Professor, who is stated to have followed the petitioner to the washroom, was shown to the court which "states that the petitioner was found using the material in the urinal".
"I am of the view that in the inquiry proceedings, the applicable test is of preponderance of probability and not proving a fact beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. In my opinion, the cancellation of the papers of the entire semester is not proportional, as even on preponderance of probability, it has not been proved that the petitioner was found using the material for copying or cheating in the paper," the court said.
The court further said that the imposition of punishment under Clause 'B' of the guidelines is in the nature of a major punishment having a substantial impact on academic career of the petitioner and therefore, the invigilators should have actually seen the charged candidate "using the material."
"A perusal of the Inquiry Report seems to suggest that the cheating material was found in the washroom and nothing in the report indicates that the student was found in "actual use of such material", as required by clause 'B'. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to a benefit of doubt in his favour," the court said.
The court thus said that petitioner falls under category 'A' of the applicable Guidelines–cancellation of particular paper where the student has committed such act/conduct, and the punishment shall be imposed accordingly.
The plea was disposed of.
Case title: X v/s UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 12856/2025 & CM APPL. 79213/2025, CM APPL. 20775/2026