The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently issued a stern warning to aspiring lawyers about engaging in reckless litigation. This advisory came while dismissing a plea by an LLM student from Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) who sought to circumvent attendance requirements for her examinations.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Ajit B Kadethankar reviewed the case of the 23-year-old student, who had lodged what the court deemed as “wild allegations” against her university, its faculty, and even a fellow student. The court found the contents of her review petition to be “absolutely reckless and irresponsible,” expressing deep concern given her impending entry into the legal profession.
“We are not only disappointed due to audacity in the approach of the applicant, but rather we are worried,” the Bench observed. “The applicant is a law graduate, who is now prosecuting her postgraduate studies at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad and soon shall be entering into the noble profession of the legal field. We notice that to overcome her own defaults, the applicant adopted such extreme measures, which not only makes her case an abuse of process, but we are afraid, that it would hamper her own career too,” the Bench remarked.
The court further highlighted concerns about the future of the legal profession if such undisciplined and scurrilous practices become prevalent among new entrants. “At such a stage of professional career, if appearance before the courts of law is meant and taken up in any undisciplined scurrilous way and without clean hands, then we are seriously concerned about the professional career of the new entrants in this noble field. This is high time that we must deprecate such practice,” the court stated.
The issue arose when the student was not allowed to sit for her second-semester exams due to insufficient class attendance. MNLU required a minimum of 75% attendance, or at least 67% with certain allowances, while the student’s attendance fell below 50%. She argued that with credit-based adjustments, her attendance could be increased to 51.12%.
More Read
In April, the High Court dismissed her original writ petition. The exams took place in May, yet the student filed a review petition challenging the April decision and requesting a special exam.
However, the court found her review petition to be akin to an appeal disguised as a review. “The applicant practically has sought to re-appreciate her case as if this court is sitting in an appeal over its own judgment and order,” the Bench noted. It also pointed out that even with the adjustments, her attendance would only reach 51%, failing to meet the requirements.
Additional issues were identified in her petition, such as introducing new documents during the review stage and claiming unproven bias by the university towards a batchmate. “We record our serious displeasure and disappointment on the applicant’s conduct,” the court commented.
Ultimately, the court concluded that none of her arguments justified a review under the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed her plea. While the Bench considered imposing penalties, it refrained due to her student status. The student represented herself, while Advocate SK Kadam appeared for the university.
