News Updates

Bombay HC Dismisses Review Plea By ‘Guilty’ Student To Revoke Degree He Obtained Fraudulently

Nitish Kashyap
7 July 2017 4:53 PM GMT
Bombay HC Dismisses Review Plea By ‘Guilty’ Student To Revoke Degree He Obtained Fraudulently
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition filed by one Vaibhav Patil, who sought his graduation degree from Mumbai University to be revoked.

Patil claims to be guilt-ridden as he obtained the degree through “fraudulent means”.

He filed a review petition against an order dated October 4, 2016, wherein his plea was initially rejected.

Rui Rodrigues, standing counsel for the university, had submitted that surrender of degree was not an option under any of the provisions in the Maharashtra Universities Act.

In his review petition, Patil stated that since the court had rejected his plea because no evidence of any wrongdoing in order to obtain the degree fraudulently was provided, he provided the said details to the university.

However, when the court sought the same details from the petitioner so that a probe could be carried out, Patil said he could not provide those now.

Thus, the bench of Justice Shantanu Kemkar and Justice MS Karnik expressed its inability to grant any legal remedy to the petitioner’s guilt.

Dismissing the petition, the court said:“Having considered the submissions made by the applicant, we are of the view that no case is made out to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to review the order passed by this Court on 4th October, 2016. It is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless the case to that effect is made out the Court cannot review the order. We do not find any error in the order warranting invocation of review jurisdiction.”

Next Story