Santosh Kumari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

More than one opportunity was given to her where this Court informed her that if she required a lawyer, one could be provided from the legal aid as she is only a law student. She has thereafter insisted on arguing the case herself. Certain questions regarding law were put to her and the petitioner in person is thoroughly incapable of answering them and she has drawn a blank.

¶12

Having gone through the learned Single Judge's order and having put other questions to the petitioner and finding that the petitioner is unable to answer any of these questions, this Court has reserved the case for judgment.

¶13

However, the petitioner in person is not leaving the dais. The petitioner has been informed by this Court that after a case has been reserved for orders, if she continues to block the proceedings and hearing of other cases which are there on the cause list, the same would amount to criminal contempt.

¶14

The petitioner in person, however, has not taken the warning

¶15

SPLAD No. 982 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

and insists on arguing the case and is blocking the proceedings of this Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is helpless but to take the assistance of the lady constable in having the petitioner physically removed from Court in order to progress with the other cases.

¶18

The case has been kept for orders in Chamber and the judgment shall follow in due course.

¶19

Later on:

¶20

In continuation of the order that is passed in the morning, it is necessary to observe here that necessity of a lady constable to physically remove the petitioner from the Court was not necessary as learned members of the Bar convinced the petitioner to step aside which she did.

¶21

The present appeal has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench. The petitioner is a student of five years LL.B. course from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University at Kanpur. Between 2021 to 2022, she has filed ten petitions including writ petitions, review petitions and special appeals, as has been observed by the learned Single Bench. In the petition before the learned Single Bench, the petitioner approached the Court that she be given 499 marks out of total of 500 in the LL.B. Ist Semester and she was wrongly awarded 182 marks. Learned Single Bench has also observed that the petitioner levelled allegations of corruption against the respondent – University and demanded that she be awarded 100 marks in all subjects. Learned Single Bench held in educational matters, the dispute looked into by an expert committee and that High Court must refrain to entertain them.

¶22

Learned Single Bench relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (Civil Appeal Nos.3649 - 3650 of 2020) on 07.12.2020, that Hon'ble Supreme Court has broadly laid down that re-evaluation, if permitted by the Rules, can be

¶23

SPLAD No. 982 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

done but the same ought not to be looked into by the Courts they lack expertise in academic matters.

¶26

The case of the petitioner was examined by the committee consisting of the head of department (Law) and two professors who were nominated by the Vice Chancellor, in consultation of the head of department (Law) who examined the answer sheets of the petitioner.

¶27

The respondent – University had re-examined her papers and verified that the petitioner got only 181 marks and not 499 marks out of total of 500. What has troubled this Court is the observation by the learned Single Bench in paragraph no.11 of the order that when the learned Single Bench was concluding its order, the petitioner in person repeatedly disturbed the Court despite the warnings and she had audacity to tell the learned Single Bench to recuse itself from the present case which of course was rejected. Thereafter, the petition was dismissed and with a view to discourage such litigation, a cost of Rs.20,000/was imposed on the petitioner in person.

¶28

This Court has gone through the order challenged before it. It is trite law that in matter relating to examinations, the correctness of the answers given by the candidates when challenged, ought not to be entertained by the Courts as the Courts lack expertises to assess academic matters. This is consistent law that has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts.

¶29

Unwarily entering into aspects of examination and reevaluation is undesirable as Courts have limited expertises and or no expertises at all depending upon nature of the subject matter before it. Either ways, it would not be safe for the Courts to supplant their views for that of experts. Such issues must be left to the wisdom of the expert committee which is constituted to examine the answers which are challenged before the Court and the Courts must necessarily accept the views of the expert committee as correct else, litigations relating to examinations, when challenged, would never receive a quietus. The views

¶30

SPLAD No. 982 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

expressed by learned Single Bench are germane and in accordance with the established law.

¶33

Under the circumstances, this Court does not feel any necessity to interfere with well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. As the petitioner is a student of 2nd year law and as is reflected in the order challenged before us that she is a chronic litigant, who keeps up approaching the Court time and again, undoubtedly, costs must be imposed to deter her from such frivolous litigation in future. However, this Court feels that instead of Rs.20,000/- a cost of Rs.10,000/- will suffice and should be adequate to deter the petitioner from further frivolous litigations.

¶34

With the above, the special appeal stands disposed of as dismissed .

¶35

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

¶36

November 18, 2025 Shubham Arya/rkg

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nur Alam vs Union of India and 3 Others

Taira Khatun vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mubarik Husain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalamuddin vs Union of India and 3 Others

Yagya Dutt Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dinesh Chand Jaiswal vs Union of India and 2 Others