Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to set aside the adverse findings recorded in the impugned Unfair Means (UFM) proceeding and declare petitioner’s examination result, in view of the absence of any incriminating material found in the petitioner’s possession, a Single Judge Bench Jasmeet Singh, J., held that for imposing the major penalty under Clause B of the applicable guidelines, it is not enough that cheating material is found in the candidate’s possession or vicinity, but the record must establish “actual use” of the material for copying or cheating. Where such actual use is not proved even on a preponderance of probabilities, the harsher semester-wide penalty cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner’s case fell under Clause A, rather than Clause B, of the applicable UFM Guidelines and notification and directed to impose punishment accordingly.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, a student of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, was enrolled in the first semester of the LLB course for the Academic Session 2024—2025. On 13 January 2025, while appearing in the exam for the subject Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the petitioner went to the washroom. One of the professors allegedly found him cheating from a slip while using the urinal.
A show-cause notice dated 17 January 2025 was thereafter issued and UFM proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was initially subjected to Clause C, under which he was debarred from appearing in University examinations until the end of the next subsequent semester.
The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Review Committee, by email dated 13 May 2025, modified the punishment from Clauses C to B, which entailed cancellation of all papers taken by the candidate in the current semester. Clause B, however, specifically contemplated possession of unauthorised material or an electronic device where the candidate had made “actual use” of such material or device as unfair means or provided assistance to another candidate.
In the meantime, the University declared the petitioner’s results in all subjects except LB-104 (BNS), the paper in which the alleged UFM incident had occurred.
Issue for Determination
Whether the petitioner could be subjected to the major penalty under Clause B, involving cancellation of all papers of the semester, when the inquiry material did not establish that he was actually using the alleged cheating material for copying or cheating during the examination?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court examined the University’s notification dated 10 July 2024 and noted that under Clause A, possession of papers, books, notes or other material, including material containing written notes or electronic devices, where the material/device could be helpful or provide assistance in answering the paper but had not been used for copying or cheating, attracted cancellation of the particular paper concerned, with the result being declared on the basis of the remaining papers and the candidate being deemed to have secured zero marks in the cancelled paper. By contrast, Clause B provided for cancellation of all papers taken in the current semester and applied where the candidate had made “actual use of such material or electronic device as unfair means” for himself/herself or had given assistance to another candidate.
On perusing the inquiry report, the Court found that no statement of the professor was shown to the Court stating that the petitioner was found the material in the urinal.
The Court clarified that the applicable test for standard of proof applicable to the UFM inquiry was “preponderance of probability”, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial. However, even on that standard, the Court found that the material on record did not establish that the petitioner had actually used the alleged cheating material for copying or cheating.
The Court asserted that cancellation of the papers of the entire semester was not proportional, since even on a preponderance of probabilities it had not been proved that the petitioner was found using the material for copying or cheating in the paper.
The Court relied on K. Dhruv Raj v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 10037/2026, observing that Clause B constituted a major punishment having a substantial impact on the academic career of the petitioner. Consequently, the invigilators should have actually seen the charged candidate using the material.
The Court found that the inquiry report merely suggested that the cheating material was found in the washroom and stated that “nothing in the report indicates that the student was found in ‘actual use of such material’”, as required by Clause B. Therefore, the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Decision
The Court held that the petitioner’s case fell under Clause A, rather than Clause B, of the applicable UFM Guidelines and notification. Therefore, it directed that the punishment was to be imposed accordingly.
The Court further directed that any consequential benefits accruing from the order shall also enure in favour of the petitioner.
[A v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 12856/2025 & CM APPL. 79213/2025, CM APPL. 20775/2026, decided on 19-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Deepak Janghu, Mr Ankush Yadav, Mr Karan Thobhani and Mr Sarthak Mahajan, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Ms. Harpreet Singh, Advs.