Justice isn't 'whatever I want': Court denies relief to student with 45% attendance

The Bombay High Court dismissed a law student's review plea seeking a special examination over low attendance. The bench said her unsupported claims abused the court process and reflected poorly on professional discipline.

In Short

• The student sought a special exam after missing mandatory classes
• University said her attendance stood at 45 per cent only
• Judges found her claims about concessions to others unproven hearsay

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a law student's plea against a university decision barring her from appearing for her final semester examinations because of low attendance, and said she had made "reckless and irresponsible" statements in court. The court said proceedings before a court must be bona fide and added that justice does not mean "whatever I want and howsoever I put it".

The Aurangabad bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Ajit Kadethankar said the 23-year-old student's attempt to overcome her own faults through false claims amounted to an abuse of process and could affect her future in the legal profession. In its June 18 judgment, the court refused to grant her relief in a review petition after her earlier plea had already been dismissed in April.

The petitioner, a postgraduate student at Maharashtra National Law University in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, had challenged the institution's decision to stop her from appearing for the final semester examinations for not meeting the mandatory 75 per cent attendance requirement. In her review plea, she sought a direction to the university to hold a special examination. She claimed there was an error in the calculation of her attendance, alleged that some students had been given extra attendance arbitrarily, and said her genuine medical circumstances had not been considered.

The university opposed the plea and told the court that the petitioner had only 45 per cent attendance. It said that if her attendance had been at least 67 per cent, additional attendance could have been granted after due consideration. The university also said she did not attend a hearing before the Grievance Redressal Committee, where she had filed an application before moving court, and later challenged the committee's order refusing her relief as arbitrary.

The court rejected the student's claim that concessions had been given to other students, saying it was hearsay and unsupported by evidence. It said she had raised a fresh case about ill health in the review petition without filing supporting documents, and that it was clear she had not attended the semester lectures as required. The bench said it was not only disappointed by her audacity but also worried, noting that she was at a stage where she was learning the practice and procedure of advocacy.

"At such a stage of professional career, if appearance before the Courts of Law is meant and taken up in any undisciplined scurrilous way and without clean hands, then we are seriously concerned about the professional career of the new entrants in this noble field. This is high time that we must deprecate such practice," the court observed.

Summing up, the high court said the student had failed to make out any case for review and dismissed her plea. It added that although it was seriously tempted to impose heavy costs on her, it refrained from doing so because she was a student.

- Ends