Case Name: Dr. Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences
Case Number: W.P. © 384/2025
Date of Judgment: 07 July 2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Vikas Mahajan
Factual Background
The petitioner, Dr. Aastha Raj, a professional MBBS graduate from Lady Hardinge Medical College, attempted the NBEMS Diploma Final Theory Examination in the field of Radio Diagnosis held on 14th, 15th, and 16th June 2024 at the Visakhapatnam centre. She had opted for the examination centre as her in-laws were staying there. During the test, the petitioner encountered technical glitches with her computer system and harassment from the invigilators in the form of indecent frisking, questioning, and delay. She submitted a written complaint through the NBEMS portal on 25th June 2024, but to no avail. But on 06.09.2024, NBEMS served a show cause notice on her alleging that she had resorted to unfair means by allegedly keeping “chits” in her hand during the 14.06.2024 examination and, when challenged, swallowed them. It was also alleged that the next day, she acted in a threatening manner while obtaining the names of the invigilators. Dr. Raj filed a detailed rebuttal on 09.09.2024, but the Examination Ethics Committee, vide order dated 29.10.2024, cancelled her candidature and debarred her from sitting for NBEMS examinations for two years. An aggrieved person, she came to the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues for Determination
The main issues before the Court were:
(1) Whether the cancellation and debarment order by the impugned order infringed the principles of natural justice?
(2) Whether the conclusions of the Examination Ethics Committee were perverse and not supported by any facts?
Legal Provisions Involved
The case involved construction and application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which authorizes the High Court to exercise the power of judicial review. In addition, the case engaged the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem—mandating reasonable hearing and revelation of materials upon which reliance was placed. The NBEMS June 2024 Unfair Means Guidelines also regulated the inquiry, which had explained activities like possession of unauthorized material, tampering with or swallowing chits, and intimidation of examiners as “unfair means”.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she had not engaged in any unfair means. The whole exam was under CCTV coverage, and the recording would have indicated any malpractice if it was done. But even after repeated requests, a formal letter dated 28.10.2024 to NBEMS, the CCTV footage and other supporting documents—like the report of the appraiser and statements of exam functionaries—were not given to her. She asserted that the footage was the best evidence and it refuted the allegations. Also, she contended that the persistent allowance to appear for exams on 15th and 16th June meant that nothing was taken seriously on 14th June and that the show cause notice was an afterthought to her harassment complaint. Relying on judicial precedents such as Mirza Saba Alam Baig v. University of Delhi, Km. Sushma Raghav v. Board of High School, and Poonam Jain v. Union of India, the petitioner alleged that withholding of material documents and lack of evidence constituted denial of natural justice and called for judicial intervention.
Contentions of Respondent
NBEMS, by its advocate, claimed that due process was adhered to. A show cause notice was served and the petitioner filed a reply. The issue was then brought before the Examination Ethics Committee, which reviewed the report of the appraiser, the petitioner’s response, and the relevant guidelines before issuing the order. It was alleged that the petitioner was caught in possession of unauthorized chits and, on being confronted with it, swallowed them. NBEMS also argued that later the petitioner was shifted to a seat in front of a pillar at 03:22 p.m., rendering it impossible for CCTV cameras to scan her activities in a clear manner. Also, they argued that the petitioner’s conduct with invigilators on 15th June was intimidating, further warranting disciplinary action.
Analysis
The Court pointed out that the charge against the petitioner was serious, encompassing both academic and personal misconduct, and thus entailed severe civil implications. The Court stressed that since the whole examination was taken under CCTV coverage, the video was the best evidence. While watching footage of Cam-05 between 16:33 and 16:41, the Court observed that the act of the petitioner was visible and no swallowing or hiding of chits was noticed. The Court dismissed the respondent’s contention that the pillar was in the way as a factually incorrect one.
More importantly, the Court also concluded that the Examination Ethics Committee did not see the CCTV footage prior to making its order and that this failure constituted non-application of mind. Further, none of the documents relied on—e.g., the written statement of the petitioner, appraiser reports, or functionary statements—were given to her, thus preventing her from getting a fair chance to defend herself. The Court declared this to be a direct breach of the doctrine of natural justice, particularly where the impugned order itself depended upon such documents. The Court believed the conclusions of the Committee to be perverse, based as they were on no underlying evidence, and held that the decision was not one which a reasonable authority would have taken.
Judgment
The Court ruled that the challenged order dated 29.10.2024 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the NBEMS Diploma Final Examination (June 2024) and debarbing her for two years was not sustainable in law. The same stood set aside for having been passed on no evidence and also as a violation of the principle of natural justice. NBEMS was asked to announce the result of the petitioner for both theory and practical examinations of June 2024 within two weeks.
Conclusion
This case emphasizes the irreplaceable importance of procedural justice and evidentiary examination in disciplinary actions, especially in the academic sphere. The Delhi High Court emphatically stated that administrative decisions impacting careers cannot be grounded on suspicion, hearsay, or internal reports not disclosed and not substantiated. The ruling is a precedent on the need to disclose evidence to the accused, and that of authorities to rely on objective evidence—particularly where the latter is available via CCTV or digital media.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYANA THERESA XAVIER
