Vishad Vivek Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The Directorate Of Technical Education Maharashtra

CNR No : HCBM020119332026
WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.
2026:BHC-OS:19461-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11936 OF 2026
Yash Pramod Gaikwad
Occupation: Student, Age, 24 years,
Residing at 204, Ishwati Pooja Building,
Shivsena Shakha, Vartak Nagar,
Jekegram, Thane (W) – 400606 … Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Directorate of Technical
Education, Maharashtra 3, Mahapalika Marg,
Dhobi Talao, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
Area, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001.
2. Jamnalal Bajaj Institute
of Management Studies ,
D. N. House, 164, Backbay,
Reclamation H. T. Parekh Marg,
Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020.
3. The State Common Entrance Test Cell
Through – The Commissioner,
th
CET Cell 8 floor, New Excelsior,
Building A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400001.
4. The University of Mumbai
Through the – Vice Chancellor,
Fort, Mumbai – 400023 … Respondents
Page 1 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11933 OF 2026
1. Vishal Vivek Kumar Gupta
Occupation: Student, Age, 23 years,
Residing at Flat No. 15, Jyoti Apartments,
rd
3 floor, Nathalal Parekh Marg.
Matunga (East), Mumbai – 400019
2. Gautam Satheesh Nair
Occupation: Student, Age, 24 years,
Residing at Archid Tower, A wing,
1902, Belasis Road,
Mumbai Central, Mumbai – 400008 … Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Directorate of Technical
Education, Maharashtra 3, Mahapalika Marg,
Dhobi Talao, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
Area, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001.
2. Jamnalal Bajaj Institute
of Management Studies ,
D. N. House, 164, Backbay,
Reclamation H. T. Parekh Marg,
Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020.
3. The State Common Entrance Test Cell
Through – The Commissioner,
th
CET Cell 8 floor, New Excelsior,
Building A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400001.
Page 2 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

4. The University of Mumbai
Through the – Vice Chancellor,
Fort, Mumbai – 400023 … Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Mihir Desai , Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Atal Bihari Dubey for the Petitioner in
Writ Petition (L) No. 11936 of 2026
Mr. Arvind Tiwari for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 11933 of 2026
Mr. Nishigandh Patil , AGP for Respondent No. 1 – State in WPL/11936/2026.
Mr. Suraj Gupte , AGP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in WPL/11933/2026.
Mr. Anil Anturkar , Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharva Date, Ms. Kashish Chelani
& Mr. Jainendra Sheth, i/b Mr. Rui Rodrigues, for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Sameer Khedekar with Ms. Mayuri Andhale for Respondent No. 3
Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. Jainendra Sheth for Respondent No. 4
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 28 JULY 2026
st
PRONOUNCED ON : 31 AUGUST 2026
JUDGMENT : (Per Farhan P. Dubash, J)
1. Since the issues arising in both the above Writ Petitions are substantially
similar, and since common submissions have been advanced on behalf of the
parties, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have consented to
the disposal of both Writ Petitions by a common judgment.
th
2. On 27 March 2026, Respondent No. 2 – Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of
Management Studies (the “Institute” ) cancelled and revoked the admission
of the Petitioners in the above Writ Petitions, namely, Mr. Yash Gaikwad in
Writ Petition (L) No. 11936 of 2026 and Mr. Vishad Gupta and Mr. Gautam
Page 3 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

Satheesh Nair in Writ Petition (L) No. 11933 of 2026, to the Two Year Full
Time Master of Management Studies degree course (the “MMS Course” ). At
the material time, all three Petitioners were in Semester IV and were on the
verge of completing the course. The decision to cancel their admission was
founded upon the allegation that the documents submitted by them at the time
of admission were forged and/or fabricated. It is this decision which is
impugned in the above Writ Petitions.
th
3. The Writ Petitions first came up for hearing before this Court on 6 April
2026. Having regard to the fact that the final semester examinations were
commencing on that very day, this Court granted ad-interim relief permitting
all three Petitioners to appear for the said examinations. The relief was
expressly granted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties
and subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petitions. It was further made
clear that the Petitioners would not be entitled to claim any equity merely by
reason of having been permitted to appear for the examinations.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, all three Petitioners appeared for the final
semester examinations. Their results, however, have not been declared by the
rd
Institute. In terms of the subsequent order dated 3 July 2026, the results of
all three Petitioners have instead been placed before this Court in a sealed
cover, where they continue to remain.
B R I E F F A C T S
5. Before considering the rival submissions on merits, it would be appropriate to
set out, in brief, the facts necessary for adjudication of the above two Writ
Petitions -
Page 4 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

a) We are informed by Respondent No. 2 – Institute that admission to the
Two Year Full Time MMS Course under the Supernumerary Quota is
governed by a process materially different from the ordinary admission
process. Candidates eligible to apply under the Supernumerary Quota
in the Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries ( “CIWGC” )
category are not required to appear for an entrance examination. Their
selection is based upon their past academic performance and the
institutional admission process prescribed for that purpose. An
applicant is required to submit a physical application form
accompanied by the prescribed academic records and such other
supporting documents as may be required by Respondent No. 3 – State
CET Cell.
b) All three Petitioners applied for admission to the MMS Course under
the CIWGC category, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
Respondent No. 3.
th
c) On 27 August 2024, the Institute published its Provisional Merit List.
The name of Mr. Yash Gaikwad appeared at Serial No. 10 with 81.80%
marks, and he was provisionally selected under the CIWGC category.
The names of Mr. Vishad Gupta and Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair
appeared at Serial Nos. 6 and 8 respectively, with 84.00% and 82.40%
marks. They were accordingly also provisionally selected under the
CIWGC category.
d) The Final Merit List, published on the following day, carried the names
of all three Petitioners at the same respective positions and reflected the
same percentages, namely, 81.80%, 84.00% and 82.40%.
Page 5 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

e) On the basis of their respective positions in the Final Merit List, all
three Petitioners were granted admission to the Two Year Full Time
MMS Course conducted by the Institute. They, thereafter completed
the requisite admission formalities, including submission of the
prescribed documents for verification. Following scrutiny and
verification of those documents, they were admitted to the MMS
Course for the academic period 2024 – 2026.
th
f) The matter, however, did not end there. On 6 March 2026, the
Institute received an anonymous email alleging that certain students,
including the three Petitioners, had falsified their graduation marks in
order to secure admission under the CIWGC category. At that time, all
three Petitioners were in their final semester.
t h
The First Committee Report dated 12 March 2026
th
g) On 7 March 2026, the Institute constituted an independent three-
member committee (the “First Committee” ) comprising a former
Director of the Institute, a retired Police Superintendent of the Central
Bureau of Investigation, and the Principal of Sathaye College,
Mumbai. The First Committee was constituted as a fact-finding body.
No notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioners at
that stage. Its examination proceeded on the basis of the documents
available to it and the material placed before it by the Institute. The
th
First Committee submitted its report on 12 March 2026.
h) Insofar as Mr. Yash Gaikwad is concerned, the First Committee
recorded a finding that, according to the degree certificate issued by
th
VNIT, Nagpur dated 15 September 2023, he had secured a
Cumulative Grade Point Average ( “CGPA” ) of 7.59 on a scale of 10,
Page 6 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

and not 8.18, which was the CGPA reflected in the documents
submitted by him at the time of his admission to the MMS Course
under the CIWGC category.
i) Insofar as Mr. Vishad Gupta is concerned, the First Committee
recorded a finding that, according to the Semester VIII grade report
issued by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute ( “VJTI” ),
Matunga, Mumbai, the original Transfer Certificate of VJTI, the
original provisional passing certificate of VJTI and the original Degree
Certificate of the University of Mumbai, the latter documents having
th
been submitted on 9 March 2026, Mr. Gupta had secured a
Cumulative Performance Index ( “CPI” ) of 5.81 on a scale of 10 and
not 8.90, which was the CPI reflected in the documents submitted by
him at the time of his admission to the MMS Course under the
CIWGC/NRI quota.
j) Insofar as Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair is concerned, the First Committee
recorded that there was a mismatch in the grade card submitted by him,
which had been issued by VNIT, Nagpur and reflected an overall
CGPA of 8.24. However, Page 2 of the said grade card bore the name
of the other Petitioner, Mr. Yash Gaikwad, together with his academic
credentials, whilst page 1 bore the name of Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair.
The First Committee noted that Mr. Nair had been granted admission
on the basis of the CGPA of 8.24 reflected in the said document. It
further noted that, at the time of admission, Mr. Nair had submitted two
documents, namely, a consolidated grade report for B.Tech. in
th
Mechanical Engineering dated 15 November 2023 reflecting an
th
overall CGPA of 8.24 and a degree certificate dated 16 November
2023 for Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Communication
Page 7 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

Engineering issued by Delhi Technological University, Delhi,
reflecting an overall CGPA of 5.99.
k) The First Committee further recorded a finding against all three
Petitioners that, at the time of securing admission in 2024, they had
submitted forged documents reflecting grades higher than those
actually obtained by them in their respective undergraduate degrees. It
found that, if the actual CGPA of Mr. Yash Gaikwad, namely 7.59,
were taken into consideration for the purpose of merit ranking, his
position would have been at Serial No. 28 instead of Serial No. 10, and
that he would consequently not have qualified for admission to the
MMS Course under the CIWGC category.
l) A similar finding was recorded in respect of the other two Petitioners.
According to the First Committee, Mr. Vishad Gupta would have stood
at Serial No. 58 instead of Serial No. 6, and Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair
would have stood at Serial No. 58 instead of Serial No. 8, if their actual
CPI/CGPA, namely 5.81 instead of 8.90 and 5.99 instead of the higher
CGPA of 8.24 reflected in the disputed document, respectively, were
taken into consideration.
m) The First Committee further observed that, since no competitive
examination was conducted for admission to the special
Supernumerary Quota seats under the CIWGC category and
applications were received over the counter at the Institute, there was
reason to believe that certain outside elements may have taken
advantage of the quota and facilitated the admission of ineligible
candidates through fraudulent means. It also observed that there was
reason to believe that the prescribed procedures had not been followed
Page 8 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

by the staff of the Institute, particularly in relation to documentation
and verification.
n) The First Committee accordingly recommended cancellation of the
admissions of the Petitioners and initiation of criminal proceedings
against them for alleged forgery of documents. It also recommended an
investigation into the possibility of involvement of external or internal
officers and/or members of the Institute’s office staff, thereby raising
the possibility of a case involving criminal conspiracy.
t h
The Second Committee Report dated 17 March 2026
o) Following the report of the First Committee, the Institute constituted a
second committee (the “Second Committee” ) comprising three
professors of the Institute for the purpose of further examining the
allegations and affording all three Petitioners an opportunity of being
heard. The Second Committee comprised three professors of the
th
Institute. On 12 March 2026, the Petitioners were informed by email
of the anonymous complaint, the allegation that they had falsified
documents during the admission process for the academic period 2024
– 2026, and the constitution of the Second Committee.
p) The Petitioners appeared before the Second Committee. They made
oral submissions and also tendered written responses. The Second
Committee considered the material placed before it, including the
documents and submissions of the Petitioners, and submitted its report
th
on 17 March 2026.
q) The Second Committee independently recorded findings substantially
Page 9 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

similar to those recorded by the First Committee. It found that the three
Petitioners had been granted admission on the basis of incorrect and
inflated marks submitted at the time of submitting the admission
proforma to the CET Centre. Upon noting significant discrepancies
between the academic credentials declared by the Petitioners during the
online application process and the verified data obtained from their
original University records, the Second Committee observed that the
discrepancies had a direct bearing upon their merit ranking and
eligibility for admission.
r) The Second Committee also recorded observations concerning the role
of the admission authorities, including alleged negligence and
dereliction of duty by admission officials, deliberate overlooking of
discrepancies, possible collusion with external agents or unofficial
intermediaries, unauthorized or irregular approval of admissions,
failure to initiate corrective action and misuse of official position.
s) Insofar as Mr. Vishad Gupta is concerned, the Second Committee
additionally observed that the certificate issued by the Indian Embassy
and submitted by him for admission under the CIWGC category
indicated that he fell within the NRI category and, according to the
Committee, was therefore not a valid certificate for admission under
the CIWGC category.
t) Insofar as Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair is concerned, the Second
Committee observed that he had secured admission by submitting a
grade card which belonged to the other Petitioner, Mr. Yash Gaikwad,
reflecting completion of B.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering from
VNIT, Nagpur, and that the CGPA reflected therein had also been
Page 10 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

enhanced, whereas Mr. Nair had in fact completed his engineering
degree from Delhi Technological University in Electronics and
Telecommunication Engineering.
u) The Second Committee accordingly concluded that there was credible
and substantial material indicating fraudulent admission practices,
fabrication of documents and possible institutional complicity. It
recommended cancellation of the admissions of all three Petitioners on
the ground that they had submitted forged documents. It further
recommended registration of an FIR against the Petitioners in
accordance with the applicable procedure and initiation of an
independent police investigation and inquiry.
v) The Second Committee also recommended that formal
communications be sent to the companies concerned for cancellation of
the Petitioners’ placements obtained through the Institute’s campus
recruitment process. While recommending an investigation into all
admissions made under the Supernumerary Quota, it further
recommended immediate suspension of persons found responsible,
pending enquiry, so as to prevent any tampering with the records.
w) Acting upon the findings and recommendations contained in the report
of the Second Committee, the Institute cancelled and revoked the
admissions of all three Petitioners. The decision was communicated to
th
them by separate letters, all dated 27 March 2026 (collectively, the
“impugned communications” ).
x) Aggrieved by the impugned communications, the Petitioners
th
approached this Court by filing the above Writ Petitions on 4 April
Page 11 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

rd
2026 and 3 April 2026 respectively.
y) It is against the aforesaid factual and procedural backdrop that the rival
submissions fall for consideration.
S U B M I S S I O N S O F T H E P E T I T I O N E R S
6. Mr. Mihir Desai, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Yash
Gaikwad, submits that the impugned communication is vitiated by a breach of
the principles of natural justice. He contends that although his client was
afforded an opportunity to appear before the Second Committee, the
opportunity so afforded was neither real nor meaningful. He points out that
the Petitioner was given barely eighteen hours to respond and was not even
furnished with the complete allegations or the documents relied upon,
including the very documents alleged to have been forged by him. He points
out that several documents subsequently relied upon by the Institute before
this Court were also not furnished during the enquiry. He submits that the
First Committee had already recorded adverse findings and recommended
cancellation of the Petitioner’s admission and initiation of criminal
proceedings before the Petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity of
hearing. Consequently, he argues that, the proceedings before the Second
Committee were reduced to a mere formality. He therefore submits that, in the
absence of disclosure of the material constituting the evidentiary basis of the
allegations and a reasonable opportunity to meet the same, the enquiry stands
vitiated on account of breach of natural justice. In support of this submission,
he relies upon the decision of this Court in Shiva Dhawan v/s SVKM’s
1
Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies .
1 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1272
Page 12 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

7. Having regard to the serious civil, academic, professional and reputational
consequences flowing from the impugned action, Mr. Desai submits that the
Petitioner was entitled to a real, effective and meaningful opportunity of
defence. He contends that administrative fairness extends beyond the mere
grant of an opportunity of hearing and requires an impartial enquiry,
disclosure of the material relied upon, objective consideration of competing
explanations and conclusions founded upon established facts.
8. Mr. Desai next submits that the fundamental error in the impugned action lies
in the failure to establish the necessary factual and evidentiary nexus between
the disputed documents and the Petitioner. According to him, the mere fact
that a document is found to be forged or inconsistent with the Petitioner’s
genuine academic record does not, by itself, establish that the Petitioner
prepared, authored, altered, signed, uploaded, submitted or knowingly adopted
the document. According to him, the Committees, have conflated two distinct
questions: first , whether the disputed documents were false or fabricated; and
second , whether the Petitioner was responsible for such documents. He
submits that the Committees have answered only the former question and
proceeded, without sufficient evidentiary basis, to infer the latter.
9. According to him, the principal issue, therefore, was not merely whether the
documents were forged, but who was responsible for them and whether the
Petitioner consciously submitted or relied upon them. During the course of
arguments, Mr. Desai went so far as to contend that the disputed documents
had not been forged by the Petitioner but by one or more persons within the
Institute, with a view to dishonestly implicating the Petitioner.
10. Mr. Desai further submits that the findings of the Committees are founded
upon inference and comparison rather than independent evidence capable of
Page 13 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

establishing fraud on the part of the Petitioner. He points out that the
Committee Reports principally compare the Petitioner’s genuine academic
records with the disputed documents and draw adverse inferences therefrom,
but do not identify any independent evidence establishing that the Petitioner
prepared or submitted the disputed documents. It is submitted that no
evidence has been produced regarding the origin or authorship of the
documents, the manner in which they entered the institutional record, the
person who uploaded or physically submitted them, or any forensic,
handwriting or digital material connecting the Petitioner with them.
11. Mr. Desai submits that the Respondents have also failed to produce the best
available evidence, such as portal-upload logs, metadata, digital audit trails,
forensic examination or contemporaneous evidence from officials who
allegedly received the documents. He further contends that the provenance
and chain of custody of the disputed documents have not been established.
According to him, several documents subsequently relied upon in the
affidavits in reply were not furnished during the enquiry, and their subsequent
production raises further questions as to their provenance and evidentiary
value.
12. Mr. Desai submits that fraud cannot be presumed and must be established by
cogent and reliable evidence. In support, he relies upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M/s. Chaturbhai M. Patel &
2
Co. . He submits that the burden lay upon the Respondents to establish the
foundational facts necessary to sustain the allegations of fraud, forgery and
deliberate misrepresentation. According to him, that burden could not be
shifted to the Petitioner merely because disputed documents were found in the
institutional records or because the Petitioner was called upon to explain
2 (1974) 1 SCC 747
Page 14 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

them. He submits that the enquiry effectively required the Petitioner to prove
a negative, namely, that he had not submitted the disputed documents,
whereas it was incumbent upon the Institute, in the first instance, to establish
through reliable evidence, that the documents originated from or were
consciously submitted by the Petitioner. He contends that the findings
recorded in the impugned communications, therefore rest upon a presumption
of attribution rather than established attribution.
13. Mr. Desai next submits that the Institute itself failed to discharge the
institutional obligation of scrutiny and verification cast upon it during the
admission process. He submits that the Petitioner followed the prescribed
admission procedure and furnished his academic documents, which were
received, scrutinised and processed by the Institute. According to him, the
Institute had access to the CET Portal, undertook the verification process,
prepared the merit list, granted admission and thereafter permitted the
Petitioner to continue his studies, appear for examinations and participate in
the placement process. It is further submitted that the parent Universities’
verification reports were received by the Institute and that, despite being in
possession of such material, the Institute did not act for several months.
14. He contends that, having exercised complete control over the admission and
verification process, the Institute cannot retrospectively convert an
institutional failure to detect an alleged discrepancy into evidence of fraud on
the part of the Petitioner. He argues that administrative negligence, cannot, in
the absence of cogent evidence of conscious participation, be transformed into
individual student misconduct. In support, he relies upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University
3 4
& Anr . and Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University .
3 1986 (Supp) SCC 740
4 (1976) 1 SCC 311
Page 15 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

15. Mr. Desai further submits that the enquiry is assailable on the ground that the
legal foundation and manner of constitution of the Committees have not been
demonstrated and that the decision-making process is vitiated by institutional
bias. According to him, the Institute has not disclosed the statutory provision,
University Ordinance, Regulation, Rule or Executive Resolution under which
the First and Second Committees were constituted, nor the source of their
jurisdiction or authority to record findings of fraud, recommend cancellation
of admission or recommend initiation of criminal proceedings. He submits
that the anonymous communication which triggered the enquiry raised
allegations not merely against the students but also concerning the integrity of
the admission process and possible involvement of persons within the
institutional hierarchy. Notwithstanding this, the Director remained part of the
very institutional structure whose functioning was under scrutiny, initiated the
enquiry, constituted the Committees, determined the scope of the enquiry,
acted upon the Committee Reports and ultimately took the impugned decision.
Mr. Desai therefore submits that the Director ought to have recused herself
and that the manner in which the enquiry was initiated and conducted gives
rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias, offending the principle
of nemo judex in causa sua .
16. Having advanced the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Desai then drew our
attention to the Application Form brought on record by the Institute in its
5

affidavit in reply . He admitted that the said Form was filled in by the
Petitioner in his own handwriting and bore his signature, and that it was
th
submitted on 29 August 2024. He, however, submitted that the incorrect
percentage of 81.80% mentioned in the said Form was entered on the basis of
information and guidance allegedly received by the Petitioner from clerical
staff at the admission desk of the Institute, who instructed him to mention
5 Exhibit F at Page 226
Page 16 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

81.80% since that percentage was reflected in the Final Merit List.
17. Lastly, Mr. Desai submits that, independently of the aforesaid grounds, the
impugned action is arbitrary and disproportionate and offends Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the Petitioner was otherwise a
meritorious student, had substantially completed the MMS Course and was at
the fag end of the programme when the impugned action was taken. He places
reliance upon the fact that the Petitioner had successfully pursued the course,
secured placement with Boston Consulting Group and built a meritorious
academic and professional record. He emphasizes the grave and potentially
irreversible academic, professional and reputational consequences of branding
the Petitioner as a person who secured admission by fraud. According to him,
the proportionality of the consequence must therefore be assessed having
regard to the stage at which the action was taken and the Petitioner’s academic
and professional circumstances. In support, he relies upon the decisions of this
6

Court in Simran Inderjeet Singh Kaur v. State of Maharashtra ; Rohan
7
Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai & Ors. and Sai Sesha Abhinay
8

Kallepalli v. University of Mumbai as also the decision of the Himachal
9
Pradesh High Court in Akash Bhawra v. Technical Education and Ors. . He
submits that the ultimate question before the Court is whether such grave
allegations have been established through a process which was fair,
transparent and unbiased and upon legally reliable material. He submits that in
the absence thereof, the impugned communications are liable to be quashed
and set aside and the Writ Petitions allowed.
18. Mr. Atal Bihari Dubey, learned advocate who appears on behalf of the other
two Petitioners, namely, Mr. Vishad Gupta and Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair
rd
6 Order dated 3 September 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 15555 of 2025
th
7 Order dated 15 January 2024 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 392 of 2023
8 2024 (4) AIR Bom R 41
th
9 Order dated 6 September 2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 349 of 2025
Page 17 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

adopts the submissions advanced by Mr. Desai.
S U B M I S S I O N S O F R E S P O N D E N T N O . 2 – I N S T I T U T E
19. Per contra, Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 2 – Institute, submits that all three Petitioners were fully
aware of the percentages attributed to them when the Final Merit List was
th
published on 28 August 2024. He submits that, having seen the Final Merit
List reflecting 81.80%, 84.00% and 82.40% respectively against their names,
none of them raised any objection or disputed the correctness of the marks so
reflected. According to Mr. Anturkar, if the Petitioners’ case is that the marks
reflected in the Merit List were not their marks, there was no reason for them
to remain silent at that stage. He submits that the explanation is apparent: their
actual percentages in their undergraduate degrees were substantially lower
and, on the basis of their actual academic record, they would not have secured
admission to the MMS Course under the CIWGC category. The Petitioners,
therefore, cannot now be permitted to contend that the marks reflected in the
Final Merit List were incorrectly attributed to them.
20. At the outset, Mr. Anturkar refers to the Application Form submitted by Mr.
Yash Gaikwad, in which the Petitioner, in his own handwriting, expressly
disclosed and represented that he had secured 81.80% in his B.Tech. degree in
May 2023 from Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology ( “VNIT” ),
Nagpur. He points out that the Application Form also bears the Petitioner’s
signature. He submits that, notwithstanding the allegations and grounds raised
in the Petition, this material document was not disclosed by the Petitioner and
came on record only when it was produced by the Institute with its affidavit in
reply. He points out that it was only thereafter that the Petitioner admitted the
document and sought to explain the discrepancy by dishonestly contending
Page 18 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

that he had purportedly been informed and guided by clerical staff at the
admission desk of the Institute to mention 81.80%, since that percentage was
reflected in the Final Merit List.
21. Insofar as the other two Petitioners are concerned, Mr. Anturkar relies upon
their respective Application Forms. In the case of Mr. Vishad Gupta, he points
out that the Petitioner, in his own handwriting, expressly disclosed and
represented that he had secured 84.00% in his B.Tech. degree in July 2024
from the University of Mumbai. He adds that Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair,
likewise, in his own handwriting, had also disclosed and represented that he
had secured 82.40% in his Bachelor’s degree in Electronics and
Communications from Delhi Technological University in November 2023.
22. Mr. Anturkar submits that these admissions on the part of the Petitioners
effectively undermine the case with which they have approached this Court,
since they have themselves admitted to submitting false and incorrect details
in their respective Application Forms. Without admitting the explanation
sought to be offered by them for having done so, he submits that such
admission disentitles the Petitioners to the reliefs sought in the present Writ
Petitions. He further submits that, once Mr. Yash Gaikwad admits to having
himself written the incorrect percentage of 81.80% in the Application Form as
having been secured in his B.Tech. degree from VNIT, Nagpur, it is only
logical, according to him, to infer that the documents reflecting that incorrect
percentage were fabricated by the Petitioner and submitted by him to the
Institute for securing admission. A similar submission is advanced in respect
of Mr. Vishad Gupta and Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair.
23. Mr. Anturkar submits that there is no plausible reason for any member of the
Institute’s staff to forge or fabricate documents, as has been casually alleged
Page 19 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

by the Petitioners. He points out that, at no stage prior to the oral arguments,
whether before the Second Committee or in the above two Writ Petitions, did
the Petitioners raise such a contention. Similarly, according to him, the
allegation that the anonymous complaint disclosed possible involvement of
members of the Institute’s staff, thereby disentitling the Second Committee,
comprising three professors of the Institute and constituted on the instructions
of the Director, from conducting the enquiry, was neither raised earlier nor
pleaded in the Writ Petitions. He therefore submits that such a contention,
cannot, be entertained by this Court at this stage. In support, he relies upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdul Walid v.
10
Nilofer .
24. Mr. Anturkar next submits that the allegation of violation of the principles of
natural justice is an afterthought. He submits that the Petitioners were
expressly afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Second Committee
and were permitted to place their respective cases before it. According to him,
at no stage before the Second Committee did the Petitioners dispute that the
documents in question had been submitted by them, nor did they challenge the
authenticity of the documents or contend that they had not submitted them. He
submits that this ground has been raised for the first time in the above Writ
Petitions. He argues that having failed to raise the issue when an opportunity
was afforded to them to do so, the Petitioners cannot now be permitted to
contend that they were denied an effective opportunity of hearing. In any
event, he submits that it is undisputed that all three Petitioners were heard on
the very allegations which ultimately resulted in cancellation and revocation
of their admissions.
25. Mr. Anturkar then draws our attention to the two grade cards of Mr. Yash
10 2024 2 SCC 144
Page 20 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

Gaikwad placed on record – one, reflecting his actual academic record and the
other, being the grade card submitted by him to the Institute at the time of
admission. According to him, comparison of the two documents reveals a
striking and systematic alteration of the marks obtained by the Petitioner in
each semester. While the integer portion of the marks has been altered so as to
reflect higher marks, the decimal portion remains identical in each instance.
He submits that this is not a case of a mere discrepancy or clerical error, but
one in which the pattern of alteration is apparent upon comparison of the
documents themselves.
26. In the case of Mr. Vishad Gupta, Mr. Anturkar points out that the Petitioner
submitted forged grade reports of VJTI, Mumbai, reflecting an incorrect CPI
of 8.90, as well as a fabricated document on the letterhead of VJTI, Mumbai
st
dated 21 August 2024 purporting to explain the conversion of CPI into
percentage. He also refers to the certificate issued by the Indian Embassy and
submitted by Mr. Gupta for admission under the CIWGC category, which,
according to him, indicates that the Petitioner fell within the NRI category. He
accordingly submits that the said certificate was not a valid certificate for
admission under the CIWGC category.
27. Lastly, in the case of Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair, Mr. Anturkar points out that
the Petitioner submitted a grade card of VNIT, Nagpur reflecting an overall
CGPA of 8.24, with page 2 bearing the name of the other Petitioner, Mr. Yash
Gaikwad, whereas page 1 bore the name of Mr. Nair. He submits that Mr.
Nair was granted admission on the basis of the CGPA of 8.24 reflected in that
document, despite the admitted position that he had not attended VNIT,
Nagpur but had obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Technology in Electronics
and Communication Engineering from Delhi Technological University, Delhi,
with an overall CGPA of 5.99.
Page 21 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

28. Mr. Anturkar submits that where the circumstances establish fraud or
manipulation on the face of the record, the requirement of a further or
elaborate opportunity of hearing cannot be invoked so as to defeat an
otherwise demonstrable case of fraud. In support, he relies upon the decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganpatbhai Mahijbhai Solanki v. State of
11 12
Gujarat and State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar .
29. Dealing with the submission that fraud must be strictly proved before the
Petitioners can be held responsible for it, Mr. Anturkar submits that the
standard of proof relied upon by the Petitioners is inapplicable to the present
proceedings. He points out that the present case is not a criminal prosecution
in which the charge must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, it
is pointed out that the proceedings before the Institute were in the nature of an
institutional or disciplinary enquiry, in which the applicable standard is that of
preponderance of probabilities. He contends that the Second Committee was
therefore not required to establish the allegations against the Petitioners to the
standard applicable in a criminal trial. In any event, according to him, once
the Petitioners admitted to submitting Application Forms in which they
disclosed and represented that they had obtained incorrect and inflated grades,
the supporting documents corroborating those grades could reasonably be
attributed to having been forged or fabricated by the Petitioners, and they
cannot thereafter be heard to contend otherwise. In support of this submission,
he relies upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh
13

Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Samar Bahadur Singh v.
14

State of Uttar Pradesh .
30. Mr. Anturkar further submits, relying upon Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board
11 2008 (12) SCC 353
12 2009 (13) SCC 600
13 (2006) 10 SCC 572
14 (2011) 9 SCC 94
Page 22 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

15
of High School and Intermediate Education , that where a person is the
direct and sole beneficiary of a fraudulent act, his knowledge and participation
may legitimately be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. In the
present case, according to him, the three Petitioners were the sole
beneficiaries of the higher marks reflected in the disputed grade cards and of
the consequent admissions secured on that basis. The circumstances,
therefore, cannot be considered in isolation or divorced from the benefit
obtained by the Petitioners.
31. Mr. Anturkar then submits that the consequences of the Petitioners’ conduct
cannot be overlooked. He submits that the Petitioners could not have secured
admission to the MMS Course on the basis of their actual CGPA/CPI and that
the admissions consequently deprived three genuinely eligible candidates of
an opportunity of admission. According to him, the Petitioners cannot be
permitted to retain the benefit of admissions which, on the Institute’s case,
were secured by fraud. He relies upon the well-settled principle that fraud
vitiates every solemn act and that no advantage can be derived from an act
founded upon fraud. In support, he relies upon the decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ram Preeti Yadav (supra) and District Primary School
16

Council, West Bengal v. Mrintunjoy Das & Others .
32. Mr. Anturkar strongly opposes the submission that the Petitioners ought to be
permitted to retain their admissions merely because they have reached the fag
end of the course. He submits that passage of time cannot legitimise an
admission which was allegedly obtained by fraudulent means. According to
him, a student who secures admission by submitting forged documents cannot
claim equity or sympathy merely because the fraud is detected after the
student has substantially completed the course. He submits that permitting
15 (2003) 8 SCC 311
16 2011 (15) SCC 11
Page 23 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

such a student to retain the benefit of the admission on the ground that he has
reached the final semester would, in effect, reward the very conduct which
resulted in the admission being secured in the first place. In support, he relies
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdeep Singh v. State of
17

J&K and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P.N. Bhadra v.
18
Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore .
33. According to Mr. Anturkar, where a student obtains an advantage over other
candidates in the admission process by adopting illegal or fraudulent means,
the Court ought not to interfere with the consequential action taken by the
institution, since doing so would compromise the fairness and purity of the
admission process. He submits that a student who commences his professional
career by resorting to trickery and deceit cannot seek the Court’s sympathy
merely on account of the passage of time or the stage reached in the course.
34. Mr. Anturkar accordingly submits that the impugned communications do not
warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the Petitioners
have failed to establish any violation of the principles of natural justice or any
other ground warranting judicial interference with the decision of the Institute.
He therefore submits that both Writ Petitions be dismissed with costs and that
no indulgence or leniency be shown to the three Petitioners.
35. Lastly, Mr. Anturkar informs us that, irrespective of the outcome of the
present proceedings, the Institute has already initiated a separate inquiry into
the serious allegations contained in the anonymous complaint, as also into the
concerns and recommendations recorded by both Committees regarding the
manner in which admissions under the Supernumerary Quota were processed.
17 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188
18 1995 SCC OnLine Kar 461
Page 24 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

He assures us that the said inquiry would be pursued independently and taken
to its logical conclusion and that, upon its conclusion, appropriate action in
accordance with law would be taken against all persons, whether officers,
employees, intermediaries or any other persons, who may be found
responsible for or complicit in any irregularity or misconduct in the admission
process.
A N A L Y S I S , R E A S O N S A N D F I N D I N G S
36. We have heard Mr. Mihir Desai, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 11936 of 2026, Mr. Atal Bihari
Dubey, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in Writ
Petition (L) No. 11933 of 2026 and Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned senior
advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 – Institute, at considerable
length. We have also carefully considered the pleadings, the documents
placed on record, the reports of the First and Second Committees, the
affidavits filed by the parties and the material produced before us in the course
of the hearing.
37. At the outset, we note that certain facts are not in dispute. All three Petitioners
were admitted to the Two Year Full Time MMS Course under the
Supernumerary Quota in the CIWGC category, on the basis of their respective
th
positions in the Final Merit List published on 28 August 2024. Their names
appeared at Serial Nos. 10, 6 and 8 respectively, with percentages of 81.80%,
84.00% and 82.40%. It is also not disputed that, if their actual academic
records, as subsequently verified from the concerned Universities, were taken
into consideration, their respective academic credentials would have been
materially lower and their corresponding merit positions would have been
substantially different.
Page 25 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

38. During the course of oral arguments, Mr. Desai fairly conceded that if the
actual CGPA of 7.59 obtained by Mr. Yash Gaikwad were taken into
consideration, he would not have secured his position in the Final Merit List
and consequently would not have obtained admission under the CIWGC
category. Mr. Dubey has made a similar concession in respect of Mr. Vishad
Gupta and Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair, whose actual CPI/CGPA were 5.81 and
5.99 respectively.
39. Thus, the controversy before us is not whether the disputed academic
credentials had a material bearing upon the Petitioners’ merit and admission
because they plainly did. Instead, the controversy is principally as to the
fairness of the decision-making process, the sufficiency of the material to
attribute knowledge and participation in the alleged fraud to each Petitioner,
the effect of the Institute’s own failure in verification, the allegation of
institutional bias and, finally, the proportionality of cancelling admissions at
the fag-end of the course.
40. The controversy, though arising from cancellation of admission to an
educational course, is consequently not a mere academic dispute. The
’
impugned communications terminated the Petitioners admission when they
were in Semester IV. Since then, the Petitioners have appeared for their final
examinations pursuant to the ad-interim orders of this Court. The
consequences are undoubtedly grave, affecting their academic qualifications,
placements, professional careers and reputation. At the same time, the
’
allegations against them are equally serious. The Institute s case is that the
very foundation of their admission consisted of academic records which did
not represent their true academic performance and which materially inflated
their marks. We are therefore faced with the challenging task of balancing two
competing considerations: the necessity of protecting the fairness and integrity
Page 26 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

of the admission process, and the equally important requirement that a student
should not be branded as having committed fraud without a fair process and
sufficient material.
41. We first consider the challenge founded upon the principles of natural justice.
th
There is no dispute that the First Committee, constituted on 7 March 2026,
was a fact-finding body and proceeded without issuing notice to the
Petitioners or affording them an opportunity of hearing. The First Committee
th
submitted its report on 12 March 2026 and recommended, inter alia,
’
cancellation of the Petitioners admissions and initiation of criminal
proceedings. The absence of a hearing before the First Committee, however,
cannot be considered in isolation. The Institute thereafter constituted the
Second Committee specifically for the purpose of considering the allegations
after affording the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. It is not disputed
th
that since then, on 12 March 2026, the Petitioners were informed of the
anonymous complaint, the allegations concerning falsification of their
academic records and the constitution of the Second Committee. They
appeared before that Committee, made oral submissions and tendered written
th
responses. The Second Committee thereafter submitted its report dated 17
March 2026.
42. The Petitioners nevertheless contend that the hearing before the Second
Committee was illusory because they were given barely eighteen hours and
were not furnished with the complete material upon which the allegations
were founded, including the documents alleged to have been forged. Reliance
has been placed by the Petitioners upon the decision in Shiva Dhawan (supra)
to contend that that a hearing in form is not necessarily a hearing in law,
particularly where the consequence is cancellation of an admission after
almost two years of study. We have no difficulty in accepting the proposition,
Page 27 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

as a matter of principle, that natural justice does not mean merely calling a
person before a committee and where an adverse decision is proposed to be
founded upon documentary material, the person concerned must ordinarily be
informed of the substance of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity of
explaining or controverting the material relied upon. It is well settled that the
more serious the civil, academic or reputational consequences, the greater is
the requirement that the opportunity of hearing should be real and meaningful.
’
43. We are, however, unable to accept the Petitioners submission that the
proceedings before the Second Committee were reduced to an empty
formality merely because the First Committee had earlier recorded adverse
findings. The First Committee was expressly constituted as a fact-finding
body. The subsequent Second Committee was separately constituted to hear
the Petitioners. They were informed of the allegations, appeared before the
Committee and made both oral and written submissions. The Second
Committee recorded findings after considering their responses. More
importantly, the central factual allegations were not matters wholly outside the
’
Petitioners knowledge. The allegations were that the academic credentials
submitted by them reflected marks materially higher than those actually
obtained. The Petitioners knew their own academic records and were in a
position to explain the discrepancies. In the case of Mr. Yash Gaikwad, the
Application Form bearing the incorrect figure of 81.80% was admittedly filled
in his own handwriting and signed by him. In the case of Mr. Vishad Gupta
and Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair, the Institute has similarly placed reliance
upon their respective Application Forms, which, according to the Institute,
were filled in and signed by them and contained the disputed percentages.
This position is now also admitted by both of them.
’
44. The Petitioners grievance concerning non-supply of every document cannot
Page 28 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

therefore be treated as if the entire case against them was based upon some
undisclosed third-party evidence. Nevertheless, we do not accept the broader
submission of the Institute that the allegation of fraud itself dispenses with
natural justice. An allegation of fraud ordinarily makes the need for a fair
opportunity more, and not less, important. The principle must be applied
having regard to the nature of the material, what facts are admitted or
undisputed, and whether the person concerned had a genuine opportunity to
explain the circumstances relied upon. The decisions relied upon by the
Institute, including Ganpatbhai Mahijbhai Solanki (supra) and Dhirjo
Kumar Sengar (supra), cannot be understood as laying down an absolute rule
that whenever an institution alleges fraud, the ordinary requirements of fair
procedure disappear. At the same time, natural justice is not an inflexible
ritual. Where the material facts are substantially undisputed and the person
concerned has had an opportunity to explain the circumstances, the Court will
not invalidate an administrative decision merely because every procedural
step that might have been adopted was not followed.
45. We have also considered the submission that the First Committee had already
recommended cancellation and criminal proceedings before the Petitioners
were heard, and that the Second Committee was consequently predisposed
towards the conclusion already reached. The fact that a preliminary fact-
finding exercise preceded the hearing does not, by itself, establish that the
subsequent Committee abdicated its function. What is material is whether the
’
Second Committee independently considered the Petitioners explanations. On
the record before us, we have no hesitation in finding that it did so. We
therefore do not find sufficient basis to hold that the impugned
communications are liable to be quashed solely on the ground of violation of
natural justice. This conclusion, however, should not be understood as holding
that disclosure of relevant material is unnecessary in an institutional enquiry.
Page 29 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

Our conclusion rests upon the particular facts before us, including the nature
’
of the allegations, the Petitioners knowledge of their own academic records,
the Application Forms relied upon by the Institute, the opportunity actually
afforded before the Second Committee and the responses made by the
Petitioners.
46. Mr. Desai has next contended that the Institute has not disclosed the statutory
provision, University Ordinance, Regulation, Rule or Executive Resolution
under which the First and Second Committees were constituted. It is
submitted that their source of jurisdiction to record findings of fraud,
recommend cancellation of admission or recommend criminal proceedings
has not been demonstrated. It is further submitted that the anonymous
complaint itself raised the possibility of involvement of persons within the
Institute and that, notwithstanding this, the Director remained involved in
initiating the enquiry, constituting the Committees and acting upon their
reports. This, according to the Petitioners, gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension of institutional bias. The submission raises an important issue.
The reports themselves contain observations concerning possible negligence,
dereliction of duty, deliberate overlooking of discrepancies, collusion with
external agents or unofficial intermediaries, irregular approval of admissions
and possible involvement of institutional personnel. It would therefore be
inappropriate for us to brush aside the allegation of institutional lapses merely
because the present proceedings concern the Petitioners.
47. At the same time, the allegation of bias must be founded upon a reasonable
apprehension of prejudice and cannot be established merely because the
enquiry was initiated by the administrative head of the Institute or because the
Committees were constituted at the instance of the Director. The Second
Committee comprised three professors of the Institute and was constituted
Page 30 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

after the First Committee had completed its fact-finding exercise. There is no
material before us demonstrating that any member of the Second Committee
had a personal interest in the outcome, had participated in the alleged
preparation or verification of the disputed documents, or had any personal
stake in finding the Petitioners guilty. We are therefore not persuaded to
invalidate the impugned communications on the ground of nemo judex in
causa sua . We also take note of the submission of Mr. Anturkar that the
allegation of institutional bias was neither raised before the Second
Committee nor specifically pleaded in the above Writ Petitions and was
advanced in its present form only during oral arguments. The decision in
Mohammed Abdul Walid (supra), relied upon by the Institute, has also been
cited in this context. We do not consider it necessary, however, to rest our
conclusion solely upon the ground of waiver or late pleading. Even examining
the contention on its merits, the material presently before us does not establish
a disqualifying personal or institutional bias on the part of the Second
Committee.
48. We now turn to the principal submission advanced by the Petitioners. Mr.
Desai submits that the Institute has conflated three distinct questions: first ,
whether the disputed documents are false or fabricated; second , whether they
were submitted by the Petitioners; and third , whether the Petitioners
knowingly participated in or relied upon those documents for securing
admission. According to him, the fact that a document is forged does not
establish who forged it. He submits that there is no forensic evidence,
handwriting evidence, metadata, portal-upload log, digital audit trail, evidence
concerning provenance or chain of custody, or testimony of the officials who
allegedly received the documents connecting the Petitioners with their
fabrication.
Page 31 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

49. The submission correctly identifies the analytical distinction which must be
maintained. The mere discovery of a false document in an institutional file
cannot automatically establish that the student concerned forged it or
knowingly submitted it. A finding of responsibility cannot rest merely upon
the proposition that the student was the beneficiary of the document. At the
same time, the Institute was not required, in an institutional enquiry, to
establish the allegations by the same method or to the same degree of certainty
as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution. The proceedings before the
Second Committee were not a criminal trial. Instead, the relevant question
was whether, on the material available, the allegation was established on a
preponderance of probabilities. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting
’
Mr. Desai s submission that absence of forensic examination, metadata, portal
logs or direct evidence as to the physical alteration of each document
necessarily renders the finding unsustainable. Direct evidence is not the only
means by which knowledge or participation can be established. In an
appropriate case, such knowledge may be inferred from surrounding
circumstances which, considered cumulatively, make the alternative
explanation improbable.
50. That said, the distinction between proof of falsity and proof of attribution
remains fundamental. Fraud cannot be established by mere suspicion. The
decision in M/s. Chaturbhai M. Patel (supra) relied upon by the Petitioners,
underscores the seriousness with which allegations of fraud must be
approached. The fact that the standard of proof in the present institutional
proceedings is preponderance of probabilities does not reduce the exercise to
one of conjecture. On the other hand, the Institute has relied upon Suresh
Pathrella (supra), Samar Bahadur Singh (supra) and Ram Preeti Yadav
(supra) to submit that knowledge and participation may be inferred from
surrounding circumstances, particularly where the person concerned is the
Page 32 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

direct beneficiary of the fraudulent act. We accept that proposition in
principle, subject to the important qualification that the inference must arise
from circumstances which, taken cumulatively, provide a rational basis for the
conclusion.
51. We shall therefore examine separately the material concerning each Petitioner
rather than assume that the existence of a common allegation permits an
identical finding against all three of them:
Mr. Yash Gaikwad
52. In the case of Mr. Yash Gaikwad, the Institute has placed before us his
genuine academic record issued by VNIT, Nagpur, reflecting a CGPA of 7.59,
and the academic documents relied upon for admission which reflected a
substantially higher academic performance. The First Committee noticed that
the disputed grade card showed systematic alteration of marks across
semesters, with the integer component being increased while the decimal
component remained unchanged. The Second Committee also found that the
inflated academic credentials directly affected his merit ranking. Standing
alone, comparison of the two grade cards establishes that one of them does not
correspond with the genuine University record. It does not, by itself, establish
that Mr. Gaikwad forged that document. We therefore do not base our
conclusion merely upon the discrepancy between the two records.
53. There is, however, another document which assumes considerable
th
significance. The Application Form submitted on 29 August 2024 bears Mr.
’
Gaikwad s handwriting and signature. Mr. Desai fairly admits this. The Form
records 81.80% as the percentage obtained by Mr. Gaikwad in his B.Tech.
degree. It is now also admitted that 81.80% was not his actual academic
’
percentage. Mr. Desai s explanation is that Mr. Gaikwad entered 81.80%
Page 33 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

because that figure had appeared in the Final Merit List and because,
’
according to the Petitioner, clerical staff at the Institute s admission desk
instructed him to mention that figure in the Application Form. We are
prepared, for the purposes of the present analysis, to consider that explanation
at its highest. Even so, the explanation does not account for the entire
evidentiary picture. The incorrect figure in the Application Form does not
stand alone. The supporting academic documents relied upon for admission
also reflected materially inflated marks. The disputed documents, therefore,
substantially corroborated the very academic position which Mr. Gaikwad
admittedly recorded in his own Application Form.
54. It is one thing for an applicant to reproduce an incorrect percentage appearing
in an institutional merit list. It is quite another for the supporting academic
records to independently reflect a corresponding inflated academic
performance. The latter circumstance calls for an explanation. No satisfactory
explanation has been placed before us as to how the supporting academic
documents came to contain the identical inflated marks. The submission that
clerical staff instructed the Petitioner to write 81.80% in the Application Form
does not explain the systematic alterations apparent from the comparison
between the disputed and genuine academic records. We are conscious of the
submission that the Petitioner has suggested, during oral arguments, that the
documents could have been fabricated by persons within the Institute with a
view to implicating him. We do not accept that hypothesis. Apart from the
fact that this allegation was not advanced before the Second Committee in the
form now urged, nor pleaded in the Writ Petition in the manner now
suggested, there is no material before us supporting such an allegation. More
importantly, the hypothesis does not explain why the Petitioner himself wrote
and signed an Application Form containing the same inflated academic
position.
Page 34 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

55. We are also unable to accept that the Petitioner can successfully rely upon the
’
absence of forensic or digital evidence when the Institute s case is based upon
a cumulative chain of circumstances. The Petitioner admittedly wrote and
signed the Application Form, admittedly entered the incorrect percentage of
81.80%, the supporting documents reflected corresponding inflated academic
credentials, those credentials materially improved his merit position, and he
obtained an admission which, on the admitted position, he would not have
obtained on the basis of his actual CGPA of 7.59.
56. Additionally, the fact that the Petitioner did not object when the Final Merit
th
List published on 28 August 2024 reflected 81.80% against his name is not,
by itself, proof of fraud. However, viewed cumulatively with the other
circumstances, it assumes significance. If, as now contended, 81.80% was
plainly known to him to be incorrect, the absence of any contemporaneous
objection is a circumstance which the Institute was entitled to take into
consideration. We therefore find that the Second Committee did not proceed
merely on the basis that Mr. Yash Gaikwad was the beneficiary of a false
document. It considered the disputed academic records, his genuine
University records, the Application Form admittedly written and signed by
him, the incorrect percentage recorded therein, the pattern of alterations in the
supporting academic documents, the resulting merit advantage and the
absence of any contemporaneous objection. Taken cumulatively, these
circumstances provide a sufficient basis, on a preponderance of probabilities,
for the inference drawn by the Second Committee. We, consequently, reject
the submission that the finding against Mr. Yash Gaikwad is founded only
upon conjecture or upon an impermissible presumption that the beneficiary of
a fraud must necessarily be its author. We find that the inference is founded
upon the totality of the circumstances proved before the Committee.
Page 35 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

Mr. Vishad Gupta
57. The position of Mr. Vishad Gupta requires separate consideration. According
to the First Committee, the genuine records issued by VJTI, including the
Semester VIII grade report, Transfer Certificate, provisional passing
certificate and Degree Certificate, reflected a CPI of 5.81 and not 8.90. The
documents submitted for admission, however, reflected a CPI of 8.90. The
st
Institute has also relied upon a document on VJTI letterhead dated 21 August
2024 purporting to explain conversion of CPI into percentage.
58. The material therefore establishes a substantial discrepancy between the
academic record verified from VJTI and the record relied upon for admission.
The discrepancy is not one of a marginal computational error. It materially
’
affected the Petitioner s merit position, from Serial No. 6 to Serial No. 58
according to the First Committee. Mr. Anturkar further relies upon the
Application Form which, according to the Institute, was filled in by Mr.
Vishad Gupta in his own handwriting and contained the representation that he
had secured 84.00% in his B.Tech. degree. The Petitioners have not placed
before us a satisfactory explanation as to how that representation, which
corresponded with the inflated academic credentials used for admission, came
to be made.
59. There is an additional issue concerning the certificate issued by the Indian
Embassy and relied upon by Mr. Vishad Gupta for admission under the
CIWGC category. The Second Committee concluded that the certificate
indicated that Mr. Vishad Gupta fell within the NRI category and was
therefore not a valid certificate for admission under the CIWGC category. We
note that this aspect is distinct from the allegation concerning academic
documents. It is unnecessary for us, for the purpose of deciding the present
Petitions, to render a definitive finding on the precise categorisation of the
Page 36 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

certificate, particularly when the cancellation of admission is independently
supported by the material concerning the academic credentials.
60. As in the case of Mr. Yash Gaikwad, the absence of direct forensic evidence
identifying the person who physically altered the VJTI records does not, by
’
itself, defeat the Institute s case. The relevant question is whether the
circumstances establish that Mr. Vishad Gupta knowingly relied upon the
disputed academic credentials. On the material before us, the inflated CPI
directly determined his merit position and consequent admission. His
Application Form, according to the Institute, records the corresponding
inflated percentage in his own handwriting. The supporting academic
documents reflected the same materially enhanced academic position, whereas
’
the University s original records reflected a CPI of 5.81. The resulting benefit
was direct and substantial. We are therefore satisfied that the Second
Committee was entitled, on the material before it, to draw the inference that
Mr. Vishad Gupta knowingly relied upon the incorrect academic credentials
for securing admission. We emphasise that our conclusion does not rest upon
the proposition that a beneficiary is necessarily the author of a fraudulent
document. It rests upon the cumulative circumstances connecting the
’
Petitioner s own representation, the supporting documents and the direct
academic advantage obtained.
Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair
61. The case of Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair presents an even more distinctive
factual circumstance. The disputed grade card submitted for admission was
issued in the name of Mr. Gautam Satheesh Nair on its first page and reflected
an overall CGPA of 8.24, but its second page bore the name and academic
credentials of Mr. Yash Gaikwad. Mr. Nair, however, had not studied at
VNIT, Nagpur. His degree was from Delhi Technological University in
Page 37 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

Electronics and Communication Engineering, with an actual CGPA of 5.99.
The document relied upon for admission was therefore not merely a record
containing a disputed numerical figure. It was a document whose pages
related to two different individuals and two different academic credentials.
The Second Committee found that the document was used to secure admission
on the strength of the higher CGPA reflected therein.
’
62. Mr. Anturkar has also relied upon Mr. Nair s Application Form, which,
according to the Institute, was filled in and signed by him and contained an
’
inflated percentage of 82.40%. The Institute s case is therefore that the
disputed grade card was not an isolated document found in its records but
formed part of an application in which the Petitioner himself represented an
academic performance materially higher than his actual CGPA of 5.99. We
recognise that the existence of a document bearing the name of the Petitioner,
particularly a document which contains an obvious mismatch between its
pages, does not automatically establish that the Petitioner fabricated it.
Nevertheless, the relevant circumstances here are substantial: the Petitioner
did not study at VNIT, the disputed document contained academic particulars
of another Petitioner, it nevertheless reflected an enhanced CGPA, the
Application Form attributed a corresponding inflated percentage to Mr. Nair,
and the document materially improved his merit position and resulted in
admission.
63. In these circumstances, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to
how a grade card belonging in part to another candidate came to be submitted
’
in support of Mr. Nair s application, the Second Committee was entitled to
draw the inference which it did. We are therefore unable to hold that its
conclusion against Mr. Nair is based merely upon suspicion.
Page 38 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

64. We shall now address the submission concerning the standard of proof. Mr.
Desai has relied upon M/s. Chaturbhai M. Patel (supra) to contend that fraud
cannot be presumed and must be established by cogent and reliable evidence.
Mr. Anturkar, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioners incorrectly seek
to import the criminal standard of proof into an institutional enquiry. There is
’
substance in the Institute s submission to that extent. The present proceedings
before the Institute were not criminal prosecutions. The Second Committee
was required to determine whether the allegations stood established on a
preponderance of probabilities. The absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not, however, mean that suspicion can substitute for proof. The proper
approach is therefore to ask whether the material relied upon by the Second
Committee establishes a sufficiently cogent chain of circumstances from
which the knowledge and participation of the Petitioners may reasonably be
inferred. In our view, in the cases of all three Petitioners, the answer is
undoubtedly, in the affirmative.
65. The principle in Ram Preeti Yadav (supra) is relevant in this context, though
it cannot be applied mechanically. Direct and exclusive benefit is not,
standing alone, conclusive proof of fraud. But where the benefit is
’
accompanied by the applicant s own representations, supporting documents
reflecting the same false academic position, substantial discrepancies with the
genuine University records and circumstances which make innocent
explanation improbable, the benefit becomes a relevant corroborative
circumstance. We accordingly reject the submission that the Institute was
legally bound to establish who physically created or altered every disputed
document before it could cancel an admission. We equally reject the
’
Institute s broader submission that the beneficiary of a fraudulent document
must invariably be treated as its author. The correct test lies between these
two extremes and is satisfied in the present cases by the cumulative material.
Page 39 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

66. We next consider the submission that the Institute itself failed in its duty to
scrutinise and verify the documents at the time of admission. Mr. Desai
submits that the Petitioners followed the prescribed procedure, submitted their
documents to the Institute, underwent scrutiny and verification, were placed in
the Final Merit List, were admitted and were thereafter permitted to study for
nearly two years. He submits that the Institute cannot convert its own
administrative negligence into evidence of student misconduct.
67. We accept that an educational institution entrusted with an admission process
bears an institutional responsibility to examine and verify the credentials
placed before it. The fact that the discrepancies in the present case remained
undetected until March 2026, when the Petitioners were already in their final
’
semester, raises legitimate questions concerning the efficacy of the Institute s
verification mechanism. But institutional failure and individual responsibility
are not mutually exclusive propositions. If a student knowingly secures an
admission by relying upon false academic credentials, the fact that the
institution failed to detect the falsity at the first instance cannot and does not
validate the admission or confer upon the student a right to retain an
advantage which he was not otherwise entitled to receive. The decisions relied
upon by Mr. Desai, including Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra) and Shri
Krishnan (supra) must be understood in their factual context. They cannot be
’
read as laying down a proposition that an admission procured by a student s
own knowing misrepresentation becomes irrevocable merely because the
institution subsequently discovers its own failure of verification.
’
68. At the same time, the Institute s failure cannot be ignored. The First
Committee itself observed that the prescribed procedures may not have been
followed by Institute staff and recommended investigation into the possible
involvement of internal or external persons. The Second Committee similarly
Page 40 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

referred to negligence, dereliction of duty, possible collusion, irregular
approvals, failure to act and misuse of official position. These observations
are important for another reason. They make it necessary to resist any attempt
to treat the Petitioners as the only persons whose conduct requires scrutiny. If
materially false documents were able to pass through an institutional
admission process and remain undetected for nearly two academic years, the
role of the persons who received, processed, scrutinised and verified those
documents requires equally serious examination. Therefore, there appears to
’
be some merit in the Petitioners institutional-negligence argument that the
’
Institute s own lapses require investigation. However, in our view, it does not
exonerate the Petitioners on the material presently available.
69. We next consider the circumstance which undoubtedly weighs heavily in
favour of the Petitioners: the stage at which the impugned action was taken.
The Petitioners had been admitted in 2024, had completed almost the entire
MMS Course, had reached Semester IV and had appeared for the final
semester examinations pursuant to the ad-interim order passed by this Court
th
on 6 April 2026. Their results are presently in a sealed cover. We have not
overlooked the submission that the Petitioners had pursued the course
successfully, built academic records during the MMS Course and, in the case
of Mr. Gaikwad, secured placement with Boston Consulting Group. We
appreciate that cancellation at this stage has consequences which would have
been materially less severe had the alleged irregularity been detected
immediately after admission.
70. But the Court cannot permit passage of time, by itself, to cure an illegality
which goes to the very foundation of the admission. As observed in Gurdeep
Singh (supra) and in P.N. Bhadra (supra), relied upon by the Institute, the
mere fact that a student has progressed substantially through an academic
Page 41 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

programme does not necessarily entitle the student to retain an advantage
obtained by fraudulent means. We do not, however, understand the law to
mean that passage of time is always irrelevant. It is a circumstance which the
Court may take into account in an appropriate case, particularly while
examining relief and proportionality. The question is whether, in the particular
facts, the equities generated by the passage of time are sufficient to outweigh
the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the admission process.
71. In the present case, they are not. The alleged misconduct is not subsequent
misconduct during the course. It concerns the very basis upon which the
Petitioners entered the course. The enhanced academic credentials directly
determined their merit positions and enabled them to obtain admissions
which, on their actual academic records, they would not have secured. To
permit retention of such admissions solely because the Institute discovered the
alleged fraud after almost two years would create a perverse incentive. It
would mean that the longer an irregular admission remained undetected, the
’
stronger would become the student s claim to retain it. Our conscience does
not permit us to accept such a principle.
72. Mr. Desai nevertheless submits that the impugned action is arbitrary and
disproportionate and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He
submits that cancellation of admission at the fag-end of a postgraduate
professional course, coupled with the consequent academic, professional and
reputational consequences, is excessive and that the Court ought to consider
’
the Petitioners subsequent academic performance, placement and the fact that
they were otherwise meritorious students. Whilst we accept that Article 226
jurisdiction permits the Court, in an appropriate case, to examine whether a
consequence imposed by an educational institution is disproportionate, the
existence of a valid ground for disciplinary or administrative action does not
Page 42 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

render every conceivable consequence immune from judicial scrutiny.
73. The difficulty for the Petitioners, however, is that the consequence imposed
here is directly connected with the misconduct found. The alleged fraud is not
’
collateral to the admission. The inflated marks were central to the Petitioners
merit positions and were material to their eligibility for admission under the
relevant quota. There is a fundamental distinction between an innocent
candidate who receives an admission because the institution itself erroneously
determines his eligibility and a candidate who secures admission by
knowingly relying upon materially false academic credentials. In the former
case, considerations of equity may carry substantial weight. In the latter,
subsequent academic performance cannot retrospectively validate the original
admission. Nor can the Court overlook the position of candidates who were
genuinely eligible at the relevant time. According to the Institute, none of the
three Petitioners would have secured admissions on the basis of their actual
academic credentials. Retaining those admissions would therefore affect not
merely the Petitioners but the fairness of the selection process itself.
74. We have also considered the decisions relied upon by Mr. Desai in Simran
Inderjeet Singh Kaur (supra), Rohan Ravindra Thatte (supra), Sai Sesha
Abhinay Kallepalli (supra) and Akash Bhawra (supra). In our view, none of
the aforesaid decisions advances the case of the Petitioners. The said decisions
must necessarily be understood in the factual and legal context in which they
were rendered. In those cases, the Courts were concerned with circumstances
where the student’s position was materially distinguishable from the present
case, particularly in relation to the nature of the discrepancy, the
circumstances in which the admission had been granted, the degree of
culpability attributable to the student, and/or the manner in which the
institutional authorities had proceeded against the student. Those decisions do
Page 43 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

not lay down an inflexible proposition that, irrespective of the nature of the
misconduct established or the stage at which the fraud is detected, a student
who has substantially completed a course must necessarily be permitted to
retain an admission which was secured on the basis of false or fabricated
academic credentials.
’
75. We accordingly do not find that cancellation of the Petitioners admissions is
so disproportionate to the misconduct established as to warrant interference
under Article 226. The fact that the Petitioners have reached the final
semester, appeared for examinations or secured placements cannot convert an
admission which was obtained on materially false academic credentials into a
lawful admission.
76. We are also conscious that, in matters concerning students and their academic
careers, Courts are naturally inclined to take a humane and sympathetic view,
particularly where the impugned action is visited upon a student at an
advanced stage of the course. Such considerations are undoubtedly relevant to
the exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction. At the same time,
judicial discretion cannot be exercised in a manner which has the effect of
permitting a person to retain an advantage obtained by dishonest or deceitful
means. An unduly lenient approach in such matters is liable not only to
undermine the purity and fairness of the admission process, but also to cause
serious prejudice to candidates who were genuinely eligible and competed for
the limited seats available. It may, moreover, create an impression that an
advantage secured by wrongful means can ultimately be preserved by
invoking the sympathy of the Court after sufficient time has elapsed. The
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be permitted to become a
source of such unintended advantage. As emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gurdeep Singh (supra), considerations of judicial policy require that
Page 44 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

such a tendency be firmly discouraged. In the present case, having regard to
the material discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the admissions of all
three Petitioners could not have been granted on the basis of their genuine
academic credentials. They would not have secured admission to the MMS
Course on the basis of their actual marks. The fact that they, thereafter,
pursued the course for a substantial period cannot, therefore, furnish a basis
for permitting them to retain an admission which was secured on a materially
false academic foundation. In order to uphold the integrity and fairness of the
academic admission process, we, accordingly, decline to interfere with the
impugned communications.
77. The aforesaid principle was subsequently noticed and applied by the
Karnataka High Court in P.N. Bharda (supra) wherein M. L. Pendse, C.J. (as
he then was), underscored that students cannot claim the protection of
equitable considerations merely because they have continued in a course for
some period after securing admission by wrongful means. The observations
made therein, which have been extracted hereinbelow, underline the larger
institutional concern that permitting an ineligible candidate to retain an
admission obtained by deceit would operate to the prejudice of those
candidates who were genuinely eligible and had competed for admission on
the basis of their actual academic merit. The principle is particularly apposite
where the wrongful conduct has a direct nexus with the candidate’s merit
position and eligibility for admission.
“10. … A time has come to make it clear to the students community
that, it is not permissible to secure admission by hook or crook. The
students must realise that employment of wrongful means to secure
admission is not tolerated by Courts. The impression is gaining ground
that whatever may be the means employed by the students, still an
appeal can be made, to the conscience of the Court by claiming that to
protect the interest of the students, their wrongs should be overlooked.
Acceding to such submission sends a wrong signal to the students
community in particular and to the society in general that the Courts will
tolerate any mischief which is done to secure admissions. The admissions
to the Courses have become very difficult and if the students, who are not
Page 45 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

eligible, secure admissions by deceitful means, that causes serious
prejudice to the genuine students who burn mid-night oil to gain marks at
the examination. A feeling of depression comes to the genuine students
when it is noticed that ineligible students or the students who have
secured admission by deceitful means, continue to undertake their course
by appealing to the Court that whatever may be the wrongs done, their
career should not be affected because they have undertaken the course
for some period. To allow such considerations to weigh with the Court
would amount to giving a charter to the students to indulge in such
activities. In our judgment, it is high time that everyone concerned with
the education must realise that false claim based on false documents will
not entitle to claim any benefit merely because the litigation remains
pending in the Court for some time. …”
78. We have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid principle applies with full
force to the facts of the present case. This is not a case where the Petitioners
were otherwise eligible and their admissions were subsequently rendered
vulnerable by an error attributable exclusively to the Institute. The material
before us establishes that the academic credentials relied upon for determining
their merit were materially higher than their genuine academic records and
that, on the basis of their actual marks, they would not have secured
admission. The consideration that the Petitioners have since completed
substantially the entire course, appeared for the final examinations and, in at
least one case, secured placement, cannot therefore outweigh the overriding
requirement that the admission process must remain fair and that an advantage
obtained on the basis of materially false academic credentials cannot be
permitted to crystallize into an enforceable equitable right merely by the
passage of time.
79. Before parting with the matter, we consider it necessary to reiterate that the
findings recorded in these proceedings are confined to the question whether
’
the Institute was justified in cancelling the Petitioners admissions. This Court
has expressed no final opinion regarding the commission of any criminal
offence, the identity of the person or persons who may have physically
fabricated or altered any document, or the culpability of any officer,
Page 46 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

employee, intermediary or other person associated with the admission process.
Those matters must be dealt with independently and in accordance with law.
80. There is, however, one last aspect which we consider necessary to emphasise.
Both Committee Reports raise concerns extending well beyond the conduct of
the three Petitioners. The First Committee referred to the possibility that
outside elements may have facilitated admission of ineligible candidates and
recommended investigation into the role of external or internal officers or
staff and the possibility of criminal conspiracy. The Second Committee
similarly referred to possible negligence and dereliction of duty by admission
officials, deliberate overlooking of discrepancies, possible collusion with
external agents or unofficial intermediaries, irregular approvals, failure to
initiate corrective action and misuse of official position. It recommended
investigation into admissions made under the Supernumerary Quota and
appropriate action against persons found responsible.
81. We make it clear that we are not recording any final finding of culpability
against any officer, employee, intermediary or other person. Those questions
are not before us for final adjudication and must be determined in an
appropriate enquiry and in accordance with law. Nevertheless, the Institute
cannot, consistently with the concerns recorded in its own Committee
’
Reports, limit its response to cancellation of the Petitioners admissions. If
there were deficiencies in the admission process, if documents were
deliberately overlooked, if unauthorised persons or intermediaries facilitated
admissions, or if any officer or employee participated in or enabled
irregularities, those matters require a fair, independent and meaningful
investigation. We are of the view that the purity of an admission process is not
protected merely by acting against the person who is alleged to have benefited
from an irregularity. The institutional mechanism through which the
Page 47 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45

WPL.11936.2026 and WPL.11933.2026.doc

Yash P. Gaikwad Vs. State & Ors.
& WPL.11933.2026
Vishal Gupta & Gautam Nair Vs. State & Ors.

irregularity occurred must also be examined and if responsibility is ultimately
established against any person connected with the admission process,
appropriate action must follow in accordance with law.
82. Considering the statement made by Mr. Anturkar which is recorded in
paragraph 35 above, we expect the Institute, in view of the serious
observations contained in the reports of both Committees, to ensure that the
manner in which admissions under the Supernumerary Quota were processed
during the relevant period is independently examined fairly, impartially and
with due expedition and if such examination discloses the involvement,
negligence, collusion, dereliction of duty or other misconduct of any officer,
employee, intermediary or third party, appropriate action must follow in
accordance with law. It can hardly be emphasized that the integrity of the
admission process requires accountability, not merely of the alleged
beneficiary of an irregular admission but of every person whose conduct may
have facilitated or enabled it.
83. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
th
communications dated 27 March 2026 in exercise of our extra-ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the above
Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA, J. )
Jyoti Pawar
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
PRAKASH
PAWAR
Date: 2026.08.31
18:42:40 +0530
JYOTI
PRAKASH
PAWAR
Page 48 of 48
------------------------------------------------
st
Judgment dated 31 August 2026
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)