Uttarakhand High Court Intervenes in University Disciplinary Case
The Uttarakhand High Court has issued a significant directive to GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, ordering the institution to provide complete marksheets for their entire course to two BTech students within a strict two-week timeframe. This decision effectively overturns the university's previous disciplinary measures against the students, which had required them to retake their sixth-semester examinations.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The case originated when Aryansh Singh and Arjita Bora, both BTech students at the university, faced allegations of using unfair means during their examinations. According to official case records, invigilators discovered material scribbled on the left palm of one student during an exam session. This discovery led to their debarment from the third year through an order dated August 27, 2024.
The students subsequently approached the High Court, which initially granted them provisional permission to complete their sixth semester of third year along with their seventh and eighth semesters of fourth year. In June of last year, the court further recommended that the university's vice-chancellor adopt a more lenient approach to the matter.
University's Controversial Decision
Despite the court's earlier suggestions for leniency, the university issued a directive on August 13, 2025, requiring both students to reappear for all sixth-semester examinations. The petitioners argued this constituted discrimination, pointing out that other students facing similar allegations of unfair means had been exonerated and received their marksheets without such requirements.
The university countered these claims by asserting that the other cases differed substantially in their circumstances. University representatives maintained that the petitioners had already received lenient treatment by being asked to rewrite only the sixth semester rather than the entire academic year's coursework.
Judicial Scrutiny and Findings
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Pankaj Purohit carefully examined the evidence presented. The court observed a critical gap in the university's disciplinary proceedings: the disciplinary committee had failed to establish whether the scribbled material found on the student's palm had actually been utilized during the examination.
"Something was found scribbled on the petitioner's palm and there is nothing in the inquiry to indicate whether the material scribbled on his palm was used during the examination or not," the bench noted in its observations. "In such a view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the action of the university in directing the students to write the examination afresh for the sixth semester appears to be very harsh."
Court's Final Ruling and Directives
After comprehensive hearings from both parties, the bench delivered its final judgment allowing the students' petitions. The court highlighted that the students had already completed their sixth semester examinations under an interim court order and had successfully cleared them, though their results had been withheld by the university.
The High Court's order specifically mandates:
- The university must issue complete marksheets for the entire course to both students
- This issuance must occur within two weeks of the order
- The earlier disciplinary action requiring examination reappearance is set aside
This ruling represents a significant judicial intervention in academic disciplinary matters, emphasizing the importance of proper evidence evaluation and proportional responses in cases of alleged academic misconduct.
