MBBS exam ‘scam’: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed expulsion of students at Rohtak Medical University

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari quashed the expulsion of students in the March 20 order.

Background: The MBBS exam scam

• The university’s disciplinary action originated from a complaint regarding large-scale irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of MBBS examinations.
• The vice chancellor of Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences, acting upon the recommendations of the board of discipline, the petitioner, who was pursuing the MBBS course, has been expelled from the University with immediate effect and all her examination results in the paper(s)/subject(s) concerned have also been cancelled, besides debarring her from re-admission.

• A preliminary inquiry in February 2025 highlighted grave discrepancies in the answer sheets of 30 students, including a mismatch of serial numbers on answer books compared to official records, indications of interchange or substitution in the answer sheets, and illicit use of 46 missing blank answer sheets.
• A criminal prosecution was also initiated against clerical staff and 24 students, involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The university argued that it followed a transparent process, constituting a Board of Discipline that provided students with a hearing and reviewed a report from a Government-approved Handwriting Expert.
  This expert concluded that the handwriting on the disputed scripts did not match the petitioners’ specimens.

Arguments of parties

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Utsav Signgh Bains, Sarabhjot Singh Cheema, and Sumeet Singh submitted that the Vice Chancellor’s final order was vitiated because the students were not afforded a personal hearing by the vice chancellor himself, nor were they supplied with the handwriting expert’s report or the board of discipline’s recommendations before the final penalty was imposed.

• Representing the university, senior advocate Garg Narwana contended that a large-scale examination scam had surfaced and was being inquired into in a transparent and unbiased manner.
• He further submitted that a fact-finding inquiry committee was initially constituted, and based on its detailed report, a Board of Discipline was subsequently constituted in terms of Clause 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance on Maintenance of Discipline among Students.

‘Vise chancellor order was against principles of natural justice’

• Although the proceedings before the board of discipline were conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Ordinance, the impugned order(s) passed by the vice chancellor stand vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
• The petitioner ought to have been supplied with copies of the recommendations of the board of discipline and the report of the handwriting expert, and also allowed to submit objections thereto, followed by a personal hearing, before the passing of any adverse order.
• The failure to do so renders the impugned order legally unsustainable.
• Though the allegations against the petitioner are undoubtedly grave, the same cannot obviate the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, compliance with which is a sine qua non before passing any adverse order.

Court findings

• The board of discipline conducted a detailed inquiry and summoned all 30 students.
• While 26 students asserted that the handwriting on their answer sheets was their own, four students acknowledged that some answer sheets did not contain their handwriting.
• To ascertain the authenticity of the disputed scripts, the assistance of a government-approved handwriting expert was taken, who, in his report, opined that the handwriting on the disputed answer sheets attributed to the petitioner did not match her admitted specimen handwriting.
• Upon consideration of the reply and the gravity of the allegations, the board of discipline recommended the imposition of the maximum penalty and referred the matter to the vice chancellor.
• The vice chancellor, upon examining the entire record, accepted the recommendation and passed the impugned order.