The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently criticised an LLM student for filing a “reckless and irresponsible” case after she tried to challenge an attendance shortage and sought permission to appear for her exams at Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU).

A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar said the student had made unfounded allegations against the university, its teachers and even a fellow student.

The Court expressed concern because the 23-year-old student is a law graduate who is preparing to enter the legal profession soon.

The judges said that instead of accepting her own shortcomings, she adopted extreme measures that amounted to an abuse of the legal process and could negatively affect her future career.

The Court also warned that such behaviour from future lawyers is worrying and should not become a trend.

It added that justice does not mean getting whatever one wants simply by making allegations.

The case arose after the student was barred from appearing in her second-semester LLM examinations due to low attendance. According to the university, students must have at least 75 per cent attendance, or a minimum of 67 per cent in certain situations, to be eligible for exams.

The student's attendance was below 50 per cent. She argued that adding certain academic credits would increase it to 51.12 per cent, but the Court noted that it still fell far short of the required attendance.

Earlier in April, the High Court had already dismissed her writ petition challenging the university’s decision. However, after the exams were conducted in May, she filed a review petition and sought a special examination for herself.

The Court refused, saying she was trying to reopen the entire case through a review petition, which is not permitted.

The judges also objected to her submitting new documents at the review stage and making unsupported allegations that the university had favoured one of her classmates by relaxing attendance rules.

Holding that none of her arguments met the legal grounds required for a review, the Court dismissed her plea.

Although the Bench considered imposing heavy costs on her, it decided against doing so because she is still a student.

The student appeared in person, while Advocate S.K. Kadam represented the university.