Permanent Expulsion Is 'Academic & Professional Death': Patna High Court Modifies Punishment For MBBS Students Linked To Impersonation In Exams

Observing that such extreme action amounts to inflicting "academic and professional death" upon young students, the Court added that the University administration had overlooked the students' potential to reform.

A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha underscored that while maintenance of academic discipline is of paramount importance, it must not be pursued to the total exclusion of the equally vital goal of affording students an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate.

Briefly put, the petitioners, all medical students who had secured admission on merit and completed a substantial part of their course, were accused of impersonation during examinations.

Acting on the recommendation of the Unfair Means Committee, the University imposed the maximum penalty of cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion.

The students challenged the decision in the HC as being arbitrary and disproportionate. It was contended that they were first-time offenders and that the punishment ignored the UGC Guidelines (of April 2023), which advocate a corrective and reformative approach.

On the other hand, the respondent-University defended the action as it contended that the penalty was imposed strictly in terms of the rules framed under Section 27 (f) of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University Act, 2008, which deals with the maintenance of discipline amongst the students.

It was further submitted that maintenance of academic discipline is of paramount importance in the institutions of higher learning

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court examined Section 27 of 2008 Act, which vests the Vice Chancellor with discretion to impose a range of punishments.

It observed that while the Rules for Unfair Means were framed under Section 27(f), they operate “without prejudice to the powers of the Vice Chancellor”, meaning thereby that the discretion under Section 27(d) remains intact and cannot be curtailed by subordinate legislation.

Justice Sinha further noted that the Vice Chancellor had "mechanically accepted" the Committee's recommendation without recording reasons or exercising independent discretion.

The Court found that this lack of application of mind, coupled with the imposition of the maximum available punishment, warranted judicial interference even within the limited scope of review.

Referring to the doctrine of proportionality, the Court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it was held that a punishment must not be so harsh as to shock the conscience or be vindictive in nature.

The single judge also referred to the Karnataka High Court's 1996 decision in T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvaraj, wherein the relationship between a head of institution and a student was compared to that of a parent and child, emphasizing correction over retribution.

The judgment also referenced the Allahabad High Court's ruling in Mohammad Zoraiz vs. Aligarh Muslim University (2023) wherein the need for universities to incorporate reformative and rehabilitative measures rather than relying solely on punitive frameworks was stressed.

Justice Sinha observed that the University's Rules for Unfair Means provided for permanent expulsion only in cases of impersonation, whereas all other categories of misconduct prescribed lesser penalties.

"The punishment of permanent expulsion imposed on the petitioners, coupled with the 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 the academic future of young students at a single stroke… the penalty imposed bears no rational or reasonable nexus with the legitimate purpose it seeks to achieve inasmuch as the objective of maintaining discipline in the University cannot be pursued to the total exclusion of the equally important goal of affording students an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate", the Court remarked.

Comparing such punishment to the Supreme Court's disapproval of indefinite blacklisting in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. BSNL 2014, the judge said: "Permanent expulsion of a student likewise amounts to academic and professional death".

Thus, finding that the Vice Chancellor had failed to exercise discretion judiciously, the Court modified the punishment instead of remanding the matter back to the University.

Accordingly, the penalty for the petitioners [Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar and Abhishek Kumar (final-year students)] was modified to three years' expulsion from the date of the VC's order and their final-year results will remain withheld.

For petitioners Afzal Azad and Ashish Ranjan (third-year students), the Court directed that their examination results be withheld and that they remain expelled for three years from the same date.

Regarding petitioner Vishal Kumar, who had completed his MBBS and internship, the Court directed that his degree shall not be conferred for two years. The court also imposed a fine of ₹5 lakh payable to the University before the expiry of that period.

Before parting, Justice Sinha cautioned the students not to mistake the modification as leniency. Reminding them that the medical profession demands integrity and compassion, it observed thus.

"The petitioners must recognize that being student of medicine carries with it even higher responsibility…(it is) expected that the petitioners will treat this opportunity as a turning point, reform their ways, and dedicate themselves to becoming not only competent medical professionals but also conscientious citizens", the Court concluded, directing each petitioner to pay ₹25,000 as litigation costs to the University within three months.

Case title - Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar vs State of Bihar and others along with connected petitions

Case citation : 

Click Here To Read/Download Order