Law Is A Noble Profession, Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Relief To Law Student Caught Cheating In Semester Exam

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash the order disqualifying a law student from appearing in any University examination for two years, after he was found cheating during an exam.

The Panjab University had caught a BA LLB student of first year with objectionable material during the exam and disqualified him from appearing in any University examination for two years.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "Firstly, the Regulations which have been reproduced provide for two years of disqualification and there is no reason for this Court to give any punishment which is lesser than the same and substituting the same with the aforesaid regulations."

Secondly, the petitioner is a student of LL.B. and he would be a future lawyer. The legal profession is a noble profession and is governed by legal ethics, added the Court.

The writ petition was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order passed by University authorities whereby the petitioner has been disqualified from appearing in any University examination for two years.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that two years is long time regarding his disqualification because his career will be affected and if some directions are issued for reduction of the aforesaid punishment, then his career will be saved.

After hearing the submissions the Court referred to Regulations 5(a) and 8 of Panjab University Calendar Volume II which prescribes the "punishment for use of unfair means."

As per the aforesaid Regulations, the punishment provided is two years of disqualification when a student is caught in mala fide possession of any of the aforementioned material, noted the Court.

In the present case, the judge observed that the petitioner while appearing in first semester in the subject of Law of Contract was found with handwritten notes which were in his own handwriting.

Rejecting the argument that the the punishment is disproportionate, the Court said it does not deem it fit and proper to grant indulgence in its exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the respondents.

Click here to read/download the order