‘Chronic Litigant’: Allahabad HC Imposes Rs. 20,000 Cost on Law Student for Baseless Higher Marks Claim

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a law student who claimed she deserved 499 marks out of 500 in her first semester LLB examination, terming the plea “without any basis” and imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 for misuse of judicial time.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery directed petitioner Santosh Kumari, a five-year LLB student at Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, to deposit the fine in the High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days.

"It is advised to petitioner to concentrate on her study so that she may get more marks by her honest preparation and she may not approach this Court again," the order stated.

Appearing in person, the petitioner alleged that she had been “wrongly marked” by the university and accused officials of corruption. She sought directions from the court to be awarded full marks in every paper and to include her name in the merit list.

Court noted that Kumari was a “chronic litigant” who had filed at least ten petitions between 2021 and 2022, including writs and appeals.

Earlier this year, the High Court had directed the university to form a three-member committee comprising the Head of Department (Law) and two professors to verify the student’s OMR answer sheets. The committee’s report, submitted in February 2025, confirmed that she had scored 181 marks out of 500, not 499 as claimed.

Rejecting her objections, court said her claims were “unsupported by evidence” and that the judiciary could not re-evaluate examination papers or substitute expert opinion with its own. The court cannot act as an expert to examine each question and answer marked by the petitioner under writ jurisdiction, the judge observed.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, including Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2020) and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018), the bench reiterated that courts must be cautious while interfering in academic evaluations. “Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in directing re-evaluation of answer sheets. Academic matters are best left to experts,” the order quoted from earlier judgments.

During the proceedings, the judge also recorded that the petitioner interrupted the court repeatedly and even asked the bench to recuse from hearing the matter. The request was “rejected with strict oral observations,” the order stated.

Concluding the matter, the bench dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 to discourage such litigation.

Case Title: Santosh Kumari vs State of UP and 3 Others

Order Date: October 29, 2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery