Relief was granted on Wednesday to a first-year law student after it was held that due procedure had not been followed before he was prevented from appearing for his semester examination. The order was passed by the Bombay High Court, where it was observed that established legal safeguards and constitutional protections had not been adhered to by the concerned institution.
The case arose after the student was allegedly asked to leave the examination hall on February 3 despite holding a valid hall ticket. It was contended before the court that no prior communication of debarment had been issued in accordance with university regulations. Under the rules prescribed by the University of Mumbai, a student must be informed of any disqualification from examinations at least ten days prior to the commencement of the examination schedule. It was noted that such communication had not been made in the present instance.
The action had been defended by Karnataka Lingayat Education Society’s College of Law on the ground that a minimum attendance of 75 percent is mandatory under existing regulations, including provisions framed by the Bar Council of India. However, it was emphasised by the bench that compliance with attendance requirements must be accompanied by strict adherence to procedural norms. The absence of prior notice was regarded as a significant procedural lapse.
Attention was also drawn to an earlier judicial pronouncement delivered by the Delhi High Court in a separate matter involving a law student. In that ruling, it had been held that denial of examination access solely on the basis of attendance shortage raises serious concerns, particularly when procedural fairness is not observed.
In the present case, it was concluded that the action taken against the student was legally untenable and violative of principles of natural justice. Directions were consequently issued that the student be permitted to appear for his remaining semester examinations. Furthermore, arrangements were ordered to be made for a re-examination in the subject that had been missed due to the alleged removal from the examination hall.
The decision has been viewed as a reaffirmation of the importance of procedural safeguards within educational institutions. It has been underscored that while academic standards and attendance norms are to be maintained, enforcement must be carried out in strict compliance with statutory requirements and constitutional protections.