HC slams NU over botched exam and result process

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Tuesday sharply questioned the functioning of Nagpur University over alleged large-scale mismanagement in its examination and result process, asking the university registrar to explain why an independent committee should not be appointed to investigate the lapses.During hearing of a PIL filed by student activist Neeraj Dharashivkar, vacation judge Justice Rajnish Vyas observed that the court "cannot remain a mute spectator when the issue governs the life of students". The court noted that various newspaper reports and material placed on record prima facie indicated serious failures in the university's examination administration.The petition alleged that more than 600 examinations were conducted before Diwali 2025, but nearly 70% of results remained pending beyond the prescribed timeline, affecting admissions, degree certificates and placement opportunities for students. In an earlier hearing, the university claimed that only 1.4% of the results were pending.On Tuesday, amicus curiae Bhushan Mohta informed that glaring discrepancies continued to surface in marksheets issued by the university. Referring to reports published in several newspapers, including TOI, the court observed that "glaring mistakes were noted in the marks awarded column of the mark lists."The judge also took note of allegations that "audit" was wrongly reflected as a subject in the BSc eighth semester examination despite not being part of the curriculum. "Mismanagement is apparent from the face of record," Mohta argued, adding that the number of errors was so large that listing them individually would run into several pages.Justice Vyas remarked that the manner in which examination results were declared "prima facie shows that there is a failure on the part of Nagpur University in the declaration of results in proper manner". The court allowed an amendment application seeking to implead Promarc Software Pvt Ltd as a respondent in the case. The petitioner alleged that the company, earlier engaged for the written examination process, failed to transfer student data to the university or the newly appointed agency, contributing to delays and discrepancies in the result process.The court directed the university registrar to submit an explanation on why a separate committee should not be constituted to examine the alleged administrative failures in the examination system. The matter will now be heard after the summer vacation.