4 min readNew DelhiAug 8, 2026 09:00 AM IST
First published on: Aug 8, 2026 at 09:00 AM IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has cancelled a one-year examination ban imposed on an MBBS Student for alleged malpractice, observing that the university declared him guilty without providing the material relied upon and a fair opportunity of being heard before holding him guilty.
The court observed that debarring a student from appearing for examinations is a severe punitive measure with serious academic and career implications. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava noted that the student was held guilty of malpractice without being provided the material on which the university reached such a conclusion.
The August 3 order said that, “the disciplinary authority imposes the penalty of debarring a student from the examination, it must establish that the material allegedly seized is relevant to the examination concerned. Equally, the student must be afforded a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard, as such a severe penalty may entail the loss of one academic year and seriously prejudice the student’s academic future.”
Justice Kiranmayee Mandava heard a matter over the disqualification of a student in an alleged malpractice case.
MBBS examination and disqualified student
The petitioner is a medical student who appeared for the MBBS Supplementary Examination in Human Anatomy-II on December 4, 2025. During the examination, he was allegedly found carrying forbidden material and was issued a show-cause notice for malpractice.
On February 10, the NTR University of Health and Sciences passed proceedings, disqualifying him from appearing for the university examinations for one year, including the examinations of December 2025.
The petitioner challenged this order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, through Advocate W V B Shravan, arguing that the university punished him but never supplied the allegedly seized material, the Special Observer’s report relied upon to hold him guilty. It was also contended that the university failed to establish that the material seized was relevant to the examination paper, which is necessary before imposing a one-year disqualification.
The university argued that the student was caught with forbidden material hidden in his pockets and under his clothes, and during the said inspection he admitted his guilt. It is further stated that the petitioner was possessing an answer to question no 11, i.e., Down syndrome.
It is further stated that from the material recovered, it could be gathered that the petitioner had requested a fellow student sitting alongside him, in the same hall, to write an answer to question No 2 and pass on the same to him.
‘Disqualification set aside’
The court observed that the university came to a conclusion that the student was guilty of malpractice, without furnishing the material to him on which they had come to such a finding. It emphasised that debarring a student from appearing for examinations is a severe punitive measure with serious academic and career implications. Such a penalty should be imposed only after strict adherence to the principles of natural justice.
The court held that such a penalty shall be imposed after the authorities provide reasons showing how the seized material was connected to the examination paper and must provide the student with the relevant material ot the allegations.
The court set aside the university’s order and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter after issuing a fresh notice, supplying all relevant material to the student and directed the university to allow the student to pay the examination fee for the upcoming August 2026 examination, subject to the result of the fresh proceedings.
The court said Debarring a
student from appearing for examinations is a severe punitive measure with
serious academic and career implications. (AI-generated image) 
Justice Kiranmayee Mandava heard a matter over the disqualification of a student in an alleged malpractice case.
Share
