Right To Appear In Exams Part Of Article 21: Allahabad High Court Orders Special B.Sc. Exam Over Technical Lapse
Despite paying fees and attending classes, the petitioner was not issued an admit card.
The Allahabad High Court has held that a student’s right to appear in an examination is intrinsically linked to the right to live with human dignity, which forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Saran held, “appearing in examination is akin to right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and when the petitioner is not at fault, her future should not be jeopardized only on the technical lapses…”
The Court directed, “as an interim measure the University is directed to hold special examination for the petitioner for B.Sc. (Biology) Ist Semester Course for academic session 2025-2026 within a period of two weeks from today and is further directed to publish the result within a reasonable period of time so that the petitioner may pursue her further studies.”
Background
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a first-year B.Sc. (Biology) student studying at Urmila Devi Post Graduate College, Handia, which is affiliated with Rajju Bhaiya University. The petitioner asserted that she had duly paid her admission fees on July 16, 2025, and had regularly attended classes during the academic session 2025–2026. However, when the university issued the examination schedule, she was shocked to find that no admit card had been issued to her.
The core issue was that the petitioner’s admission records were not updated on the University’s “Samarth Portal” within the stipulated time. Notably, her application and relevant details were already available on the portal, albeit in draft form. Upon discovering this discrepancy, the college submitted a representation to the University pointing out that the records of nearly 30 students, including the petitioner, had not been updated on the portal. Although the University subsequently updated the records of 25 students, the petitioner’s data remained unattended and was once again left unprocessed.
Of this failure to update her records on the Samarth Portal, the petitioner was rendered ineligible to download her admit card.
Finding
The Court noted that the University authorities were fully aware of the technical lapse and that the petitioner’s data was already available on the portal in draft form. Despite such knowledge, the University failed to take corrective steps. The Court also expressed concern over the inability of the University’s counsel to apprise the Court of any established procedure or mechanism adopted by the University to address such technical errors when they are brought to its attention.
The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Rahul Pandey v. Union of India (2025), wherein it was held that the right to appear in an examination is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also drew support from the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Re: Master Prabhnoor Singh Virdi (Minor Son) v. Indian School and Another (2023), which similarly recognised that denying a student the opportunity to take an examination amounts to an infringement of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21.
Emphasising that the petitioner was not at fault and that her future could not be imperilled due to mere technical lapses or administrative negligence, the High Court issued a mandatory interim direction. The University was ordered to conduct a special examination for the petitioner for the B.Sc. (Biology) First Semester course for the academic session 2025–2026 within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that the examination results be declared within a reasonable time to enable the petitioner to continue her academic pursuits without further hindrance.
Additionally, the University was directed to take all necessary steps to update the petitioner’s academic records on the portal within a reasonable timeframe to safeguard her future prospects. The Court also directed the counsel appearing for the respondent University to file a counter-affidavit explaining the procedure followed by the University when it is informed about technical difficulties or failures in updating the online portal.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 10.
Cause Title: Shreya Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Suraj Pandey
Respondents: Advocates Pratik Chandra, Vikas Mishra