In a decisive judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, upheld a two-year examination disqualification imposed on a B.A. LL.B. student of Panjab University for using unfair means during an exam. The judgment, delivered on November 5, 2024, reinforces the sanctity of academic integrity and the ethical standards expected in the legal profession.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a first-semester law student, was caught using handwritten notes during a “Law of Contract” examination in December 2023. The invigilator found incriminating material written in the student’s handwriting on pages 16 and 17 of the answer sheet. Following this incident, the University issued a show-cause notice on February 27, 2024, and subsequently disqualified the student from taking any exams for two years, in line with the university’s regulations on unfair means. The student appealed to the Vice-Chancellor for a review, but the decision was upheld.
The student then approached the High Court, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate and would adversely affect his career.
Key Legal Issues
1. Validity of the University’s Disciplinary Actions:
The case examined whether the two-year disqualification aligned with Panjab University’s regulations and whether such punishment was proportionate to the offense.
2. Ethical Considerations for Legal Professionals:
The court deliberated on the ethical obligations of aspiring legal professionals and the implications of academic misconduct on their future careers.
Court Observations and Decision
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri firmly dismissed the petition, emphasizing the integrity and ethics inherent in the legal profession. The court quoted the University’s Regulations 5(a) and 8 from its Calendar Volume II, 2007, which mandate a two-year disqualification for students caught with unauthorized material during examinations. These provisions leave no room for leniency.
The court remarked:
“The legal profession is a noble profession and is governed by legal ethics. This Court therefore does not deem it fit and proper to grant indulgence in its exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The court further observed that the petitioner’s role as a future lawyer necessitated adherence to high ethical standards, reinforcing the decision to uphold the punishment.
Representation in Court
– For the Petitioner: Advocate Mohit Jaggi
– For the Respondents (Panjab University): Advocate Subhash Ahuja
