Bombay High Court warns future lawyers against scurrilous litigation, dismisses LLM student’s plea

An LLM student's "reckless" bid to bypass an attendance requirement for taking her exams at the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), recently led the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to warn aspiring lawyers against pursuing indisciplined and scurrilous litigation..A Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Ajit B Kadethankar found that the 23-year-old student had made wild allegations against the university, the faculty, and even her batchmate. It went on to hold that her review petition's contents were "absolutely reckless and irresponsible."The Court recorded its displeasure and disappointment at the student’s approach, particularly because she is a law graduate on the verge of entering the profession. "We are not only disappointed due to audacity in the approach of the applicant, but rather we are worried. The applicant is a law graduate, who is now prosecuting the Post Graduation studies at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad and soon shall be entering into the noble profession of 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 observed..The Court further expressed serious concerns about the legal profession if such an approach is taken up by other future lawyers. "At such 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 said. It added that the concept of justice does not mean "whatever I want and howsoever I put it.".The Court made the observation in a case where an LLM student was not permitted to take her second semester exam on account of a class attendance shortage. The university stated that 75 per cent attendance was required, or at least 67 per cent, to take the exams. The student's attendance fell below 50 per cent, although she contended that with some credit-based additions, it could rise to 51.12 per cent. .In April, the Court dismissed a writ petition filed by her in the matter. The exam was conducted in May. The student, however, moved a review petition questioning the correctness of the April ruling and seeking the conduct of a special exam for her.The Court, however, found that the review plea appeared to be an appeal in disguise. "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."It noted that at best, her attendance would only rise to 51 per cent, which is still not enough to satisfy the attendance rule requirements for taking the exam. The Bench also flagged several other serious issues in the review petition, including the production of new documents at the stage of review and unsubstantiated allegations that the university had shown bias to her batchmate by relaxing his attendance requirement. "We record our serious displeasure and disappointment on the applicant’s conduct," it remarked. The Court further pointed out that the student's plea for a re-exam was beyond the scope of its powers while exercising its review jurisdiction. .The Court ultimately found that none of her grounds satisfied the narrow parameters for review under the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed her plea."We are seriously tempted to impose heavy costs for the reasons recorded above. However, considering that the applicant is a student we hold on our hands," it added. .The student appeared in person.Advocate SK Kadam appeared for the University..[Read order]