Should Be Given One Chance: Bombay High Court Directs NMIMS To Permit MBA Students To Appear For Exam Whose Admissions Were Cancelled

The Bombay High Court has directed the Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) to permit two students of Master of Business Administration (MBA) whose admissions were cancelled as she changed her marks on her answer sheet.

The Court was hearing two Writ Petitions filed by the aggrieved students against the decision and the email by which their admissions for the academic year 2024-25 were cancelled and they were barred from appearing for the examination.

A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice N.R. Borkar held, “We are inclined to hold that the act on the part of the petitioners was a result of bad judgment and something that the petitioners would have well avoided, as there was no need for them to have indulged in such an act. In our humble opinion, the petitioners should be given one chance.”

Advocate Aneesa Cheema represented the Petitioners while AGPs Atul Vanarse, Rakesh Pathak, and Advocate Gaurav Srivastav represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

In the lead case, the Petitioner was a student pursuing first year of MBA offered by the Respondent-NMIMS Educational Institution. Her record was meritorious and unblemished. On account of the good results obtained in 12th standard board exams, she was admitted to the St. Stephens College, which is one of the most prestigious colleges across the entire country. She continued to display excellent academic strides and maintained an average aggregate score of 8.02.7 CGPA. She was then selected for MBA course offered by the NMIMS and maintained a good score of 8.23 CGPA. She submitted all her assignments on time and was selected as the Class Representative. She represented the Institution in external events and was one of the 60 finalists out of 7000 participants to be selected at the event organized by Goldman Sachs.

Prior to final examinations, the internal mid-term exam was conducted and she had duly appeared for the same. During the answer sheet distribution of one of the Corporate Finance Mid Term paper, she was surprised to learn that she had received 8.5 marks out of 30 in the internal paper. Being engulfed by the fear of not consistently performing well, and in complete lapse of judgment, she and two of her classmates (one of the Petitioners) changed the marks on their respective answer sheets to depict that they had received a higher score. She had had already passed her internal exams with 25.5 marks without increased marks. The 3rd Semester exams of the first year were due to be conducted and four days prior to the same, she received an email calling upon her to appear before the Unfair Means Committee of the Institution.

She was due to take a flight to Bangalore on that very same day to represent the Institution at the Goldman Sachs event. Despite this, the Institution proceed with the meeting without her presence and hence, while travelling, she submitted a brief written apology, as asked. However, thereafter, the Institution barred her from appearing for exam and further cancelled her admission for the entire year. She was also required to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as re-admission fees and incur living expense of over Rs. 10 lakhs to cover the cost of an additional year. Hence, this was under challenge before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “We would have otherwise agreed with the punishment imposed by the Institution but for the fact that even without the increased marks the petitioners had already passed in the internal examination and in any event would not have affected the petitioners from passing in the present academic year. It is for this reason that we are pursuaded to take a view in the facts and circumstances of this case that the action on the part of the petitioners was impulsive, on the spur of the moment decision motivated by the dwindling prospects of securing a good job and the societal pressure to perform at all times.”

The Court said that the fact that in any event the increased marks would not have affected the Petitioners from passing in the present academic year has weighed in considering the Petitioner’s case differently and hence it is a fit case where the past academic record of the Petitioner ought to be a factor in considering the proportionality of the punishment.

“The petitioners unconditionally accept the punishment which we have adverted to hereinabove. Though we should be very slow in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Educational Institution which by its nature appears proportionate, but on an overall conspectus of the academic record of the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances of this case which we have discussed hereinbefore, we feel constrained to interfere with the punishment in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, it noted.

The Court, therefore, directed the Respondent-Institution to permit the Petitioners to appear for the re-examination to be conducted for the students who are otherwise unable to appear or otherwise failed in the exams and pursue further studies by permitting them to attend the classes subject to the results of the examination.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned decision and e-mail.

Cause Title- Simran Inderjeet Singh Kaur v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:14482-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Aneesa Cheema, Arshil Shah, Smita Durve, Bhairavi P., Yukta P., and Yash K.

Respondents: AGPs Atul Vanarse, Rakesh Pathak, Advocates Gaurav Srivastav, Manorama Mohanty, Malika Mondal, and Hitanshu Jain.

Click here to read/download the Judgment