Reference to a Division Bench on Vice-Chancellor’s “Discretion” vs Mandatory Expulsion for Impersonation under AKU Unfair Means Rules

Case: Arvind Kumar Mehta v. The State of Bihar

Court: Patna High Court (Single Judge)

Date: 10-08-2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar

1. Introduction

The petitioner, Arvind Kumar Mehta, a 3rd professional MBBS Part-I student of Government Medical College, Bettiah, challenged the University’s order cancelling his admission and expelling him from Aryabhatta Knowledge University (AKU) on the ground of impersonation in an MBBS ENT examination.

The incident arose during the 3rd professional MBBS Part-I Examination 2023 (paper held on 27.09.2024), where the invigilator reported that Abhishek Kumar (another student of the same college) was writing the ENT paper in place of the petitioner. The Centre Superintendent and Observer also submitted reports confirming the impersonation. An FIR was registered as Jakkanpur PS Case No. 554 of 2024.

After issuance of a show-cause notice and personal hearing before the Unfairmeans Committee, the Committee found the charge proved. The Vice Chancellor, acting on the Committee’s recommendation, cancelled the petitioner’s admission and expelled him (Ref. No. 5124 dated 12.11.2024).

The core controversy before the Court was shaped by an earlier co-ordinate Bench decision in Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 (and analogous cases), which had treated permanent expulsion as disproportionate and modified the penalty to a time-bound expulsion. The petitioner sought similar treatment (parity), while the University and the State questioned the correctness of that approach and raised the issue of per incuriam.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court did not finally decide the merits of the punishment. Instead, it found that there existed divergent approaches between:

  • The earlier Bench decision in Prashant Bharti Vs. Aryabhatta Knowledge University & Ors., AIR 2020 Pat 154, which emphasised limited judicial interference in unfairmeans matters when due process is followed; and
  • The later decision in Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024, which read Section 27(d) of the Statute 2011 as preserving Vice-Chancellor discretion notwithstanding the Unfairmeans Rules and reduced permanent expulsion as disproportionate.

Holding that the correctness of Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 required “further consideration” (especially since Prashant Bharti had not been brought to that Bench’s attention), the Court, following judicial discipline, referred the matter to a Division Bench, to be placed along with LPA No. 613 of 2026 (filed by the University).

The writ petition was thus kept pending in substance: the Court directed filing of a second copy and ordered that the case would abide by the Division Bench’s final decision.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited (and their role)

(a) B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749]

The Court invoked this decision to restate the limits of judicial review: Article 226 review examines the decision-making process (fairness, legality, evidence), not the correctness of the conclusion as an appellate court would. This framed the Court’s cautious stance before interfering with university discipline.

(b) Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad & Anr., AIR 1966 Supreme Court 875

Quoted at length, this is the classic authority on judicial restraint in unfairmeans inquiries. It emphasises that educational bodies’ “domestic tribunals” may rely on probabilities/circumstantial evidence, and High Courts should be “slow to interfere” unless there is no evidence or violation of natural justice. The Court used it to underscore that impersonation inquiries are primarily for the university to decide, subject to procedural legality.

(c) Prashant Bharti Vs. Aryabhatta Knowledge University & Ors., AIR 2020 Pat 154

This Patna High Court decision applied Bagleshwar Prasad to uphold punishment for unfairmeans (copying using a chit), where procedure was fair and no mala fides were pleaded. In the present case, it was relied upon by the University and the State to argue that courts should not substitute punishment when rules are followed.

The Single Judge, however, distinguished its scope: Section 27(d) of the Statute 2011 (the supposed source of a range of punishments) was not under consideration there; hence Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 could not be labelled “strictly” per incuriam solely for that reason.

(d) Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 480; BSNL v. TRAI, (2014) 3 SCC 222; Union of India v. Pfizer Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 39

These Supreme Court cases were discussed in the extracted reasoning from Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 to interpret the phrase “without prejudice” (in Section 27(f)) as preserving broader statutory powers despite rules framed under it. They were part of the foundation for the earlier Bench’s view that the Vice Chancellor’s discretion under Section 27(d) cannot be “fettered” by subordinate rules.

The present judgment does not reject these authorities, but questions whether, on the statutory scheme and the rules actually framed, there is in fact any “choice” left in impersonation cases—thus putting the prior application of these cases into doubt for this context.

(e) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347

The petitioner relied on this to argue parity: if one set of identically situated students obtained relief (reduction of punishment), others should not be discriminated against. The Court did not determine parity finally because it referred the broader conflict to a Division Bench, but it identified parity as one of the questions embedded in the referral.

(f) Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 24547 of 2023 decided on 02.11.2023

The Court cited this at length to underline the public interest and patient-safety dimension of unfairmeans by MBBS students, describing the systemic harm of unethical medical qualification. This strengthened the Court’s scepticism towards leniency and highlighted the need for institutional discipline.

(g) Karthik Deepak Sharma Vs. Director General, Nirma University, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 992

Cited for the proposition that sympathy for students using unfair means is generally misplaced, save for exceptional circumstances, reinforcing the deterrence-oriented view of academic integrity.

(h) Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59

Used to stress that exam integrity is essential to national progress; cheating is likened to a “plague” and a “pandemic.” This supplied normative support for strict enforcement and resistance to judicial dilution of prescribed penalties.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Several elements of the Court’s reasoning are clear despite the matter being referred:

  • Proof and admission of impersonation: The Court recorded that the petitioner’s show-cause (Annexure-P/2) contained an admission of allowing Abhishek Kumar to sit on his behalf, and that multiple reports corroborated impersonation. Therefore, the finding of guilt was not the focus.
  • Rule-based prescription for impersonation: The Court noted Category 5.1(c) of the Rules for Unfairmeans: for the student for whom the impersonator appears, “admission ... be canceled and he will be expelled from the University.” This set up the tension between a fixed rule consequence and the earlier Bench’s view of Section 27(d) discretion.
  • Scepticism about “discretion” where rules prescribe only one punishment: The Court expressly questioned the prior finding that the Vice Chancellor mechanically imposed the “maximum available punishment,” reasoning that discretion presupposes available options; if the statutory rules prescribe “one and only” punishment for proved impersonation, the Vice Chancellor’s role may not be one of choosing a lesser penalty. In the Court’s view, the prior approach risked “disrob[ing] the power of Unfairmeans Committee” and “nullify[ing] the rules.”
  • Judicial discipline and reference: Because the Court perceived a doctrinal conflict (and pending LPA No. 613 of 2026), it referred the matter to a Division Bench to “give quietus” to divergent views.

Notably, the judgment also hints at an institutional remedy: if discretion truly exists but was not exercised reformatively, the proper course might be remand for fresh consideration rather than judicial substitution of penalty—another point the Division Bench may clarify.

3.3 Impact

Although interlocutory in effect, the judgment is significant for at least four reasons:

  • Clarification of the AKU disciplinary architecture: The reference squarely raises whether the Statute 2011 (Section 27(d)/(f)) preserves a meaningful Vice-Chancellor discretion in impersonation cases despite the Unfairmeans Rules prescribing cancellation/expulsion. The Division Bench’s answer will shape future outcomes for the most serious category of exam misconduct.
  • Parity claims in academic discipline: Students similarly punished will continue to invoke parity where one batch obtains reduction. Whether parity operates when the earlier relief itself is contested (and possibly per incuriam/under appeal) is a recurrent public law issue.
  • Judicial review boundaries: By re-emphasising Bagleshwar Prasad and the public harm of unfairmeans, the judgment signals a stricter attitude toward judicial dilution of deterrent sanctions in professional courses—especially medicine.
  • Institutional coherence: The reference mechanism itself reinforces that conflicting single-judge approaches on the same statutory scheme should be resolved authoritatively, limiting uncertainty for universities and students.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Certiorari: A writ by which a High Court can quash an order of a lower authority if it is illegal, procedurally unfair, or irrational.
  • Unfairmeans / Impersonation: “Unfairmeans” are dishonest exam practices. “Impersonation” is when one person writes an exam in place of another.
  • Domestic Tribunal (in education): University/board committees (like an Unfairmeans Committee) that conduct fact-finding inquiries. Courts generally do not re-try these matters like a criminal court would.
  • Judicial review vs appeal: In judicial review (Article 226), courts examine whether the process was lawful and fair; they usually do not replace the authority’s decision with their own view of merits or punishment.
  • Doctrine of proportionality: A principle that punishment should not be excessively harsh compared to the misconduct. Its application in exam discipline is contested where rules prescribe fixed penalties for severe misconduct like impersonation.
  • Per incuriam: A decision said to be rendered “through lack of care,” typically because it ignored a binding precedent or statutory provision. Here, the State argued Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar in CWJC No. 19657 of 2024 ignored Prashant Bharti; the Court held it was not “strictly” per incuriam but still required reconsideration.
  • “Without prejudice” clause: Usually means “in addition to” and not “in limitation of” other powers. The controversy is whether such wording keeps Vice-Chancellor discretion alive even where specific rules prescribe a single sanction.

5. Conclusion

This judgment does not finally affirm or reduce the petitioner’s punishment. Its importance lies in the institutional correction step it takes: it identifies a live conflict in Patna High Court’s treatment of impersonation penalties under AKU’s framework—between a rule-mandated expulsion model and a discretion/proportionality model—and refers the question to a Division Bench, especially in light of the pending LPA No. 613 of 2026.

The eventual Division Bench ruling will likely determine (i) whether AKU’s Vice-Chancellor has real sentencing discretion in proven impersonation cases, (ii) how far proportionality can judicially soften fixed academic penalties, and (iii) whether parity-based relief can be claimed when the earlier relief is under challenge.