No Proof of 'Actual Use': Delhi HC Downgrades DU Law Student's UFM Penalty to Clause A

The High Court found that the inquiry report showed cheating material in a washroom but no evidence the student actually used it during his BNS examination.

The High Court of Delhi has set aside the University of Delhi's decision to cancel all papers of a first-semester LL.B. student for alleged use of unfair means during his Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita examination in January 2025. Justice Jasmeet Singh, sitting singly, held that the inquiry report did not establish that the petitioner was found in “actual use of such material” as the University's own guidelines require for a Clause B punishment. The penalty was accordingly reduced to Clause A, which carries the lesser consequence of cancellation of only the particular paper in which the alleged misconduct occurred. The order was passed on 19 August 2026 disposing of W.P.(C) 12856/2025.

What the Petitioner Alleged in the Examination Hall

The petitioner was enrolled in the first semester of the LL.B. course at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, for the 2024–25 academic session. On 13 January 2025, during the BNS examination, he stepped out to the washroom. Professor (Dr.) Vijoy V. Panicker followed him and allegedly found him cheating from a slip while using the urinal.

A Show Cause Notice was issued on 17 January 2025. The University's Examination Disciplinary Committee conducted an inquiry into the alleged use of Unfair Means (UFM). Following the inquiry, the petitioner was debarred from appearing in any university examination until the end of the next subsequent semester — the punishment prescribed under Clause C of the University's UFM guidelines.

The petitioner appealed. The Review Committee, by an email dated 13 May 2025, modified the punishment. Instead of Clause C, the Committee imposed Clause B, which carries the cancellation of all papers taken by the candidate in the current semester, including essential repeat papers.

The Three-Tier Penalty Structure Under the 10 July 2024 Notification

The University's procedure for UFM penalties is set out in a notification dated 10 July 2024. Justice Jasmeet Singh examined all three clauses in detail.

Clause A covers acts such as talking without permission, keeping possession of books, notes, or electronic devices that could assist a candidate — but where the candidate has not actually used the material for copying or given assistance to another candidate. The punishment under Clause A is cancellation of the particular paper alone, with the candidate deemed to have secured zero marks in that paper.

Clause B is triggered where a candidate keeps possession of such material and has made actual use of it as unfair means for himself or given assistance to another candidate during the examination. The statement of the invigilator or superintendent, along with circumstantial evidence, is treated as sufficient proof under Clause B. The punishment is cancellation of all papers in the current semester.

Clause C addresses more serious misconduct: gross misbehaviour, threats of physical force, intentionally tearing an answer book, or disturbing the examination. It carries debarment from all university examinations until the end of the next subsequent semester, with a right to reappear in the affected semester's examination during the next academic session.

How the Court Assessed the Inquiry Report

Justice Jasmeet Singh examined the inquiry report on record. His finding was direct: no statement of Professor (Dr.) Vijoy V. Panicker appeared in the report establishing that the petitioner was actually found using the material while in the washroom. The report indicated that cheating material was found in the washroom, but nothing in it showed the student had the material in active use.

The Court made clear that the applicable standard in UFM proceedings is not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The test is preponderance of probability. But even on that lower threshold, the court held it had not been proved that the petitioner was found using the material for copying or cheating in the paper.

The bench drew on its own reasoning in K. Dhruv Raj v. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) 10037/2026), where it had taken the position that imposition of a Clause B penalty is a major punishment with a substantial impact on a student's academic career. For that reason, the invigilator must have actually seen the charged candidate using the material before Clause B can be invoked.

Applying that standard here, Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a perusal of the inquiry report suggested only that cheating material was found in the washroom. Nothing indicated the student was in “actual use of such material” as Clause B specifically requires. The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Why Clause B Was Found Disproportionate

The proportionality point was central to the court's reasoning. Clause B collapses an entire semester's academic work: all papers, including essential repeat papers, stand cancelled. For a first-semester LL.B. student, the consequence is a significant delay in completing the degree.

The University's own guidelines draw a deliberate distinction between mere possession of material (Clause A) and actual use of that material (Clause B). The distinction matters because possession alone — even in circumstances that raise suspicion — does not establish that a candidate deployed the material to gain an unfair advantage in answering the paper. The court found the Review Committee's modification from Clause C to Clause B still retained this disproportionality because the factual predicate for Clause B had not been made out.

On the evidence in the inquiry report, Justice Jasmeet Singh concluded the petitioner's conduct fell within Clause A: possession of material that could be helpful, without proven actual use. The punishment therefore had to be calibrated accordingly.

Status of the Petitioner's Results

By the time the petition was heard, the University had declared the petitioner's results in all subjects of the semester except LB-104 (BNS) — the paper in which the UFM allegation arose. The subject result was withheld pending the disciplinary proceedings and the outcome of this writ petition.

The court's order that the petitioner's case falls under Clause A means only the BNS paper (LB-104) stands to be cancelled, with the petitioner deemed to have secured zero marks in that paper. All other papers already declared are unaffected.

Order

Justice Jasmeet Singh disposed of W.P.(C) 12856/2025 on 19 August 2026. The court held that the petitioner's case falls under Clause A of the University of Delhi's UFM guidelines and notification dated 10 July 2024. Punishment is to be imposed accordingly. The court further directed that any consequential benefits accruing from the order shall also enure in favour of the petitioner.