The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday expressed strong concerns over the functioning of Nagpur University, citing alleged large-scale mismanagement in its examination and result processes. The court questioned the university registrar on why an independent committee should not be appointed to investigate the lapses.
Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by student activist Neeraj Dharashivkar, vacation judge Justice Rajnish Vyas remarked that the court cannot remain a mute spectator when the issue directly impacts students' lives. The court observed that various newspaper reports and material on record prima facie indicated serious failures in the university's examination administration.
The petition alleged that over 600 examinations were conducted before Diwali 2025, yet nearly 70% of results remained pending beyond the prescribed timeline. This delay affected admissions, degree certificates, and placement opportunities for students. In an earlier hearing, the university had claimed that only 1.4% of results were pending.
On Tuesday, amicus curiae Bhushan Mohta informed the court that glaring discrepancies continued to surface in marksheets issued by the university. Referring to reports published in several newspapers, including the Times of India, the court noted that glaring mistakes were observed in the marks awarded column of the mark lists.
The judge also took note of allegations that audit was wrongly reflected as a subject in the BSc eighth semester examination, despite not being part of the curriculum. Mismanagement is apparent from the face of record, Mohta argued, adding that the number of errors was so large that listing them individually would run into several pages.
Justice Vyas remarked that the manner in which examination results were declared prima facie shows a failure on the part of Nagpur University in declaring results properly. The court allowed an amendment application seeking to implead Promarc Software Pvt Ltd as a respondent in the case. The petitioner alleged that the company, earlier engaged for the written examination process, failed to transfer student data to the university or the newly appointed agency, contributing to delays and discrepancies.
The court directed the university registrar to submit an explanation on why a separate committee should not be constituted to examine the alleged administrative failures in the examination system. The matter will now be heard after the summer vacation.
