The Allahabad High Court has delivered a strong message against frivolous litigation by imposing a hefty fine on a law student who claimed she deserved 499 out of 500 marks in her LL.B examination. The court dismissed the petition and advised the student to concentrate on her studies rather than pursuing unsustainable legal challenges.
Student's Bold Claim Meets Court's Scrutiny
Santosh Kumari, a student pursuing the five-year integrated LL.B course at Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University in Kanpur, had approached the court with an extraordinary claim. She asserted that she should have scored 499 marks out of 500 in her first-semester examination, contradicting the university's evaluation that awarded her only approximately 181 marks.
The petitioner argued that the university had made significant errors in evaluating her answer sheet. However, the university had already conducted a thorough re-examination of her OMR sheet through a committee comprising law faculty members, which confirmed the original assessment of around 181 marks.
Court's Firm Response and Critical Observations
The High Court, in its order dated November 2025, completely rejected the student's claims and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 for bringing what it termed as an "unsustainable challenge." The court directed the petitioner to deposit this amount within 15 days into the High Court Legal Services Committee's bank account.
In a strongly worded observation, the court stated: "It is advised to the petitioner to concentrate on her study so that she may get more marks by honest preparation and she may not approach this Court again." The bench emphasized that the student's claim of potentially scoring 499 marks was "based on assumption without any basis whatsoever."
Pattern of Frivolous Litigation Exposed
The court took serious note of the petitioner's litigation history, revealing that between 2021 and 2022, Santosh Kumari had filed at least 10 similar petitions, including writs, review petitions, and special appeals. This pattern of repeated filings influenced the court's decision to impose a financial penalty as a deterrent.
The order specifically mentioned: "Only because the petitioner is appearing in person, the Court cannot extend liberty to file any documents or make any submission which has no legal basis on facts as well as on law." The court noted that the petitioner failed to cite any binding legal precedent to support her extraordinary claim.
The judiciary also reaffirmed its position of minimal interference in educational matters, stating: "It is well settled that in educational matters where there are expert reports or answer keys are checked by an expert committee, the High Court should remain slow in interfering."
University's Verification Process Upheld
Earlier in the proceedings, the court had ordered the university to constitute a review committee comprising the head of the law department and two professors to re-examine the answer sheet. After this thorough re-check, university officials maintained their original conclusion that the petitioner's marks were correctly tabulated at about 181, not the 499 as claimed by the student.
The court found that the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which purported to quote answers, had no verifiable source and failed to identify which specific questions were allegedly marked correctly on the OMR but left unmarked by the university evaluation process.
This case serves as a significant precedent regarding the judiciary's approach to educational evaluation disputes and establishes clear boundaries for students seeking legal recourse for examination results.
