Patna High Court delivered judgements on September 19, 2025 in Shashikesh Kumar vs. The Vice-Chancellor, Bihar Engineer University, Mithapur, Patna & Ors. Sumitra Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar, Sham Mohammad Nut & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, Anil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., Basundhara Devi and Ors vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , Rajeshwar Rao & Ors vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors., Uday Kant Jha vs. The State of Bihar, Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Afzal Azad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, Ashish Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar, Abhishek Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha disposed of the 1) Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Patna & Ors., 2) Afzal Azad vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Patna & Ors. 3) Ashish Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Patna & Ors., 4) Abhishek Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Patna & Ors. and 5) Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Patna & Ors. by a 51-page long common judgment and order. Since all these five writ petitions involved common questions of law and fact, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and decided by the common judgment/order. The petitioners, in all these writ applications, had a common prayer for quashing the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor of the Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, and communicated by the Controller of Examination of the University, whereby the Vice Chancellor of the University has decided to cancel the admission of the petitioners in M.B.B.S. course and further directed their permanent expulsion from the University.
Justice Sinha relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, W.T. Project, BSNL (AIR 2014 SC 9), wherein it as held that blacklisting an entity indefinitely is disproportionate and tantamount to inflicting “economic death,” the permanent expulsion of a student likewise amounts to “academic and professional death”. Such a penalty, is unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The absence of proportionality, the failure to exercise discretion, and the adoption of a purely punitive approach to the exclusion of reformist considerations are the reasons because of which this court deems it appropriate to exercise its power of judicial review in matters of academic discipline which in normal circumstances this court should not have interfered with.. The Court, therefore, is of the view that the punishment imposed cannot be sustained in its present form.
Justice Sinha observed:''110. I have also carefully considered the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the University, but none of the cases cited on behalf of the University pertains to the imposition of the extreme penalty of permanent expulsion of a student. In the humble view of this Court, such a punishment of permanent expulsion is nothing short of a “death knell” to the academic career of a young student, amounting to placing a full stop on his future prospects and aspirations. Unlike the factual matrix of University, the present matter deals with the most severe penalty, i.e., permanent expulsion." He added: "111. Having concluded that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is unduly harsh and disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct, this Court also finds that the Vice Chancellor, despite being vested with the statutory discretion to impose range of punishments, has failed to exercise such discretion in a judicious and balanced manner which would be evident from the impugned orders. The approach adopted has been purely punitive, to the exclusion of any reformative consideration, thereby overlooking the petitioner’s potential to reform.
The judgement reads: "112. In such a situation, the next question is whether the matter should be remitted to the University authorities for reconsideration, or whether this Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and the career of the students, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought itself to modify the penalty so as to ensure that justice is done, consistent with the doctrine of proportionality and the constitutional mandate to adopt a reformist approach. 113. This Court has already come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed cannot sustained in its present form. Since the penalty imposed upon the petitioners are unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate, the question would, now, be whether this Court should remit the matter back to the respondent University for modification of penalty in terms of Section 27 (d) of the Statute or this Court should itself modify the penalty imposed upon the petitioners.
Justice Sinha observed: "114. In my considered view, the petitioners are pursuing professional medical course and interest of justice demands that instead of remanding the matter back to the University for reconsideration of the quantum of penalty, as per Section 27 (d), this Court is inclined to modify the penalty for the reasons discussed herein above."
Justice Sinha modified the punishment imposed upon the petitioners in the following manner :-
116. The petitioners, Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar and Abhishek Kumar, who, as informed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, was the student of 3rd Professional Part-II Examination, i.e. Final Year of MBBS Examination, and were found guilty of indulging in the misconduct of impersonation during the last year of their respective course itself. Consequently, their results of the said final year examination shall remain withheld and shall not be published/declared.
117. Further, in modification of the penalty of cancellation of admission and permanent expulsion from the University, it is directed that the aforesaid two petitioners shall remain expelled from the University for a period of three years reckoned from the date of the order of the Vice Chancellor.
118. With respect to the petitioners, Afzal Azad and Ashish Ranjan, as informed by Senior Counsel for the petitioners, they are presently pursuing the 3rd Professional Part-I Examination (3rd Year). Insofar as these two petitioners are concerned, it is directed that the result of the examination in which they were found guilty of misconduct shall remain withheld and the same shall not be published/declared.
119. In modification of the punishment as originally imposed upon them, it is further directed that these petitioners shall remain expelled from the College/University for a period of three years reckoned from the date of the order of the Vice Chancellor.
120. Insofar as the petitioner, Vishal Kumar, is concerned, as informed by Senior Counsel for the petitioners, he has already completed his MBBS course in the year 2024 and during the pendency also undergone and completed his one-year compulsory rotatory internship on 15.07.2025.
121. Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case of the petitioner, Vishal Kumar, and the stage of his academic career, this Court finds it appropriate that MBBS degree of the petitioner shall not be conferred for a further period of two years, reckoning from the date of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor. In addition, the petitioner, Vishal Kumar, shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) to the University, which shall be deposited by him before the expiry of two years.
122. Before parting with, this Court deems it necessary to directly remind the petitioners that the punishment modified by this Court should not be mistaken as indulgence or leniency. The petitioners must recognize that being student of medicine carries with it even higher responsibility; for, the profession is intrinsically linked with compassion, integrity, and service to humanity. It is, therefore, 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 onus, now, lies heavily upon the petitioners to demonstrate, through conduct and diligence, that the trust reposed by this Court upon them is not misplaced future, they shall uphold the dignity of their institution, serve society at large and embody the ethical values that the medical profession demands.
123. With the aforesaid observation, direction and modification, these writ applications are disposed, with costs.
124. The petitioners shall pay the cost of litigation of Rs. 25,000/- each to the University within a period of three months from today.
Notably, it seems most of the orders by Vice Chancellor, Aryabhatta Knowledge University which got challenged have been either set aside or modified by the High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment