Right to Appear in Examinations Is Part of the Right to Life: Allahabad High Court Orders Special B.Sc. Exam
In a deeply human and forward-looking judgment, the Allahabad High Court has underscored something many students feel in their hearts: the opportunity to sit for an examination is more than just a procedural step in academia. It lies at the very core of a student’s dignity, aspirations, and future. In a recent order, the Court recognised that the right to appear in an examination flows from the fundamental right to live with dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution — and that when a student is not at fault, technical glitches or administrative lapses should not stand between her and her future.
The case arose from the plight of Shreya Pandey, a first-year B.Sc. (Biology) student at Urmila Devi Post Graduate College, Handia, affiliated with Rajju Bhaiya University in Prayagraj. Shreya had done everything expected of her — she got admission for the 2025–26 academic session, paid her fees on July 16, 2025, and attended her classes diligently. Yet when the first-semester examination schedule came out, she discovered that she had not been issued an admit card. That absence of a simple card meant she couldn’t sit for her exams, bringing her academic journey to an abrupt halt.
Digging into the reason for this exclusion reveals how easily a student’s future can be jeopardised by systems that are blind to human consequences. The university used an online portal called the “Samarth Portal” to upload and manage student records. Although Shreya’s admission details were present on the portal, they remained stuck in “draft form” — never formally updated — and so the system didn’t generate her admit card. The college did inform the university that records for nearly 30 students were not updated due to technical issues. The university later corrected records for 25 students but somehow left Shreya’s record untouched.
It’s hard to overstate what being barred from an exam means for a young student. For many, these examinations are not just academic hurdles but gateways to careers, self-confidence, and purpose. They mark years of effort and represent hope for the future. Yet here, because of a glitch — a draft file on a portal — Shreya’s dream was at risk. When she approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, she wasn’t just asking for justice for herself; she was asserting a simple truth: she had fulfilled all academic requirements, and the system had failed her.
The Bench, led by Justice Vivek Saran, didn’t shy away from recognising this truth. In its order dated January 12, 2026, the Court emphasised that the right to appear in an examination is not just a procedural right but one that connects deeply with human dignity. It noted that when a student has done everything correctly and is kept out of an exam due to administrative or technical lapse, the student’s academic future — and by extension, her right to a dignified life — is put at risk. Such a situation, the Court said, would be violative of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty in its broadest sense.
Drawing on its earlier decisions, including Rahul Pandey v. Union of India (2025), where a similar principle was recognised, the court reiterated that education — and access to examination — forms an essential part of a person’s right to live with dignity. It also took persuasive support from judgments like Re: Master Prabhnoor Singh Virdi v. Indian School and Another (Delhi High Court, 2023), which held that denying a student the chance to take an exam can be an infringement of fundamental rights.
But beyond principles, the Court took immediate and practical steps to ensure Shreya didn’t lose a year or more of her life on account of a system error. It directed Rajju Bhaiya University to conduct a special examination for her first-semester B.Sc. (Biology) course within two weeks of the order. Importantly, it also mandated that her results be published within a reasonable time, so she can continue her academic journey without unnecessary delay.
The University was also asked to update Shreya’s records properly on the portal and to come back to the Court with an explanation of how it handles technical glitches of this kind, so similar situations can be prevented in the future. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 10, 2026.
For law students and practicing lawyers alike, this case is a powerful reminder that constitutional rights are not abstract concepts to be quoted in exams or textbooks. They shape real lives. A student’s right to appear in an exam may sound routine, but it touches on hope, effort, equality, and dignity. When courts recognise this and allow justice to reflect lived realities, the law becomes not just a set of rules but a protector of life itself.
In a world where digital systems increasingly govern academic eligibility, this judgment stands as a beacon: technical glitches cannot be allowed to extinguish human dreams. And when they do, the law must step in — not just to correct the glitch, but to restore a student’s faith in justice and her right to live with dignity.