Permanent Expulsion Amounts to ‘Academic & Professional Death’: Patna High Court Grants Relief, Modifies Punishment of MBBS Students Accused of Exam Impersonation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha granted relief to five MBBS students who had been permanently expelled by Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, for alleged impersonation during examinations. The Court described the University’s decision as unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate, holding that such extreme punishment inflicted “academic and professional death” upon young students. It observed that while maintaining academic integrity is essential, the University failed to exercise its statutory discretion and ignored the students’ potential for reform. Emphasizing that disciplinary measures must align with the principle of proportionality, the Court directed the University to reconsider the matter afresh, ensuring that any penalty imposed is fair, reasoned, and consistent with the broader objectives of education and rehabilitation.
The case concerned disciplinary measures taken by Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, against five MBBS students from different government medical colleges in Bihar. The University had annulled their admissions and ordered permanent expulsion after finding them responsible for impersonation during professional examinations. The students approached the High Court seeking to set aside those orders.
The incidents originated during the 2023 MBBS examinations when the University received reports that one student had appeared in a paper on behalf of another. Based on the invigilators’ and Centre Superintendent’s reports, the Controller of Examination issued show-cause notices to each student. Written replies were submitted denying the allegations or attributing non-appearance to illness. All petitioners were subsequently called before the 57th Unfair Means Committee, which reviewed the reports and written statements before concluding that impersonation had occurred. The Committee recommended cancellation of admissions and permanent expulsion, and the Vice Chancellor accepted those recommendations, which were formally conveyed to the respective medical colleges.
The petitioners argued that the punishment was disproportionate, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the Aryabhatta Knowledge University Act, 2008. They relied on Section 27 of the Statute, which allows the Vice Chancellor to impose a range of disciplinary measures such as rustication, withholding of results, or fines. It was contended that the extreme penalty of expulsion was imposed mechanically, without considering lesser sanctions. They further submitted that the “Rules for Unfair Means” lacked statutory backing and had not been published in the Official Gazette as required under Section 46 of the Act. The students also referred to the University Grants Commission’s 2023 guidelines promoting corrective and reformative approaches to student discipline.
The University contended that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and the applicable rules. It maintained that impersonation in medical examinations constitutes a serious academic offence undermining public confidence in medical qualifications, and that uniform punishment was imposed after due process. The University stated that each petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to respond before final orders were issued.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha recorded that “the petitioners before this Court are young students pursuing the professional medical course, having secured admission on merit and successfully completed a substantial part of the course.”
The Court held that “a rule cannot override the Act or the Statute nor can it restrict the ambit of the parent legislation.” It observed that Section 27(f) of the Statute, which empowers the University to frame rules of discipline, operates “without prejudice to the powers of the Vice Chancellor” under Section 27(d). Thus, the Vice Chancellor must exercise discretion while selecting punishment and not treat subordinate rules as mandatorily prescribing the harshest penalty.
The judgment stated that “the Vice Chancellor mechanically accepted the recommendation of the Unfair Means Committee without recording any reason to demonstrate an independent exercise of discretion.” The Court found that the penalty of permanent expulsion was imposed without consideration of mitigating factors or alternative measures available under the Statute.
On the doctrine of proportionality, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, which held that punishment should not be “vindictive or unduly harsh” and must suit both the offence and the offender. The Court also quoted from T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvaraj v. Principal, B.M.S. College of Engineering (1996 SCC Online Kar 616) that “the main purpose of punishment is to correct the fault of the student concerned by making him more alert in future and to hold out a warning to others.”
The Bench remarked that “permanent expulsion amounts to academic and professional death,” equating it with “economic death” as discussed in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, BSNL (AIR 2014 SC 9). The judgment recorded that “the punishment imposed bears no rational or reasonable nexus with the legitimate purpose it seeks to achieve” and that the University failed to balance deterrence with reform.
The Court also referred to the UGC Guidelines for Promotion of Students' Health and Well-Being (2023), observing that “discipline in higher education institutions must be pursued through a composite approach which supplements deterrence with constructive reform and self-development programmes.” It held that the Vice Chancellor’s failure to consider these aspects rendered the decision “purely punitive, to the exclusion of any reformative consideration.”
The Court concluded that “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.”
Justice Sinha modified the punishment imposed by the University. Regarding petitioners Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar and Abhishek Kumar, who had appeared in the Third Professional Part-II (final year) examination, the Court ordered that “their results shall remain withheld and shall not be published or declared.” It directed that they “shall remain expelled from the University for a period of three years reckoned from the date of the order of the Vice Chancellor.”
For petitioners Afzal Azad and Ashish Ranjan, who were in the Third Professional Part-I (third year), the Court directed that “the result of the examination in which they were found guilty of misconduct shall remain withheld” and that they “shall remain expelled from the College/University for a period of three years reckoned from the date of the order of the Vice Chancellor.”
In the case of Vishal Kumar, who had completed his MBBS and internship, the Court held that the University could not cancel his admission since he was no longer a student. However, “taking into account the peculiar facts of the case,” the Court directed that “the MBBS degree of the petitioner shall not be conferred for a further period of two years” and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000 to be deposited within that period.
In a concluding admonition, the Court stated that “the punishment modified by this Court should not be mistaken as indulgence or leniency” and reminded the petitioners that as future doctors they must uphold integrity and compassion. “The petitioners must recognize that being students of medicine carries with it even higher responsibility,” the Court wrote, directing them to “treat this opportunity as a turning point” and “uphold the dignity of their institution and the ethical values of the medical profession.”
The petitions were disposed of with costs, directing each petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to the University within three months.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Ms. Shrishti Singh; Mr. Pranav Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amarendra Kumar; Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh; Smt. Binita Singh; Mr. Awadhesh Kumar; Mr. Bindhyachal Rai; Mr. Binay Kumar; Government Pleader; Ms. Archana Meenakshee; Mr. Rohit Singh; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyay, AC.
Case Title: Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar & Others v. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number: CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 and analogous cases (267/2025, 335/2025, 538/2025, 1012/2025)
Bench: Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
