Discrepancy in Punishments for Impersonation in Exams Prompts Judicial Review
In a significant development, the Patna High Court has referred a high-profile case of examination impersonation to a Division Bench for further consideration. The case, involving Arvind Kumar Mehta, a third-year MBBS student at Government Medical College, Bettiah, was heard on August 10, 2026, by Justice Harish Kumar. The petitioner was previously expelled from Aryabhatta Knowledge University (AKU) after being found guilty of examination impersonation, a decision that has been the subject of intense legal scrutiny.
The controversy arose when Mr. Mehta was found to have allowed another student, Abhishek Kumar, to impersonate him during an ENT examination on September 27, 2024. The Vice Chancellor of AKU, following the recommendation of the Unfairmeans Committee, ordered the cancellation of Mr. Mehta's admission and his permanent expulsion from the university. This decision was challenged in court, with Mr. Mehta's legal team arguing that the punishment was excessively harsh and disproportionate.
The High Court, in its review, acknowledged the previous decision of a coordinate bench in the case of "Bhawesh Kumar Bhaskar," where similar penalties for impersonation were reduced to a three-year expulsion. The Court noted that the Vice Chancellor had the discretion under Section 27(d) of the Statute 2011 to impose a range of punishments and that such discretion should be exercised judiciously, taking into account the doctrine of proportionality and the potential for reform.
Justice Kumar's judgment highlighted the need for uniformity in the treatment of students found guilty of similar misconduct. He stressed the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, especially in cases involving the future careers of young students. The Court also recognized the broader implications of unfair practices in examinations, emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity of the educational system.
The case has been referred to the Division Bench following concerns over potential discrepancies between the current judgment and previous rulings. This move aims to resolve the divergent views and ensure that a consistent legal standard is applied.
The judgment also emphasized the societal impact of cheating, particularly in the medical field, where the consequences of unethical behavior can be far-reaching. The Court underscored that maintaining high ethical standards is essential for the credibility and trustworthiness of future medical professionals.
The outcome of the Division Bench's review will have significant implications for the handling of similar cases in the future, setting a precedent for how educational authorities balance disciplinary actions with the potential for student rehabilitation.
Bottom Line :
Disciplinary actions in cases of impersonation during examinations must align with statutory rules, but authorities should exercise discretion judiciously, keeping in mind constitutional mandates and proportionality.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 27(d) of the Statute 2011, Aryabhatta Knowledge University Act 2008, Rules for Unfairmeans
The final decision by the Division Bench will determine whether the current punishment stands or if a more lenient approach, in line with the earlier coordinate bench's decision, will be adopted. The case continues to be closely watched, given its potential impact on educational discipline and legal standards in India.
Arvind Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2961613
