A student failed an MBBS Physiology paper by just two marks, risking loss of an academic year and medical seat. The Telangana High Court, invoking constitutional protections and the Right to Information Act, directed the university to permit re-verification of the answer sheet, affirming that marginal failures cannot be treated as final without procedural fairness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Banothu Mahesh Karthik, is an MBBS student at Medicaliti Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, who appeared for his first-year university examinations in 2025. He cleared Biochemistry and Anatomy but was declared failed in Physiology (Theory) by a marginal shortfall of two marks. Despite having answered the paper diligently and in accordance with the syllabus, the university refused to consider re-evaluation, moderation, or grace marks. The petitioner argued that this failure, though minimal, would result in the loss of his medical seat and an entire academic year, causing irreparable harm to his career.
Procedural History
The case was filed as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution:
- The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the university to re-evaluate his answer sheet.
- He also filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking urgent relief.
- The university did not respond to prior requests for re-verification or moderation.
- The petitioner relied on a prior order of the same court in W.P. No. 585 of 2026, involving a similar case of a one-mark shortfall in Human Anatomy.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration that the university’s refusal to re-evaluate was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
- Direction to the university to permit re-verification of the Physiology answer sheet upon payment of requisite fees.
- Urgent disposal to prevent loss of the academic year.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a student who fails a professional examination by a marginal margin is entitled to re-verification of answer sheets under the Right to Information Act and constitutional guarantees of equality and life, even in the absence of explicit university regulations permitting such review.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on:
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sendar Education v. Aditva Bando Dadha and Others (2011) 8 SCC 497, which held that answer sheets are ‘information’ under the RTI Act and students have a right to inspect or obtain certified copies unless exempted under Section 8(1)(e).
- The court’s own prior order in W.P. No. 585 of 2026, which granted re-verification to a student failing by one mark in Anatomy.
- Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that arbitrary failure without review violates the right to equality and the right to pursue a profession.
For the Respondent
The State and the university did not dispute the petitioner’s submissions. The learned Assistant Government Pleader and Standing Counsel conceded that the principles laid down in the Apex Court’s judgment and the court’s earlier order in W.P. No. 585 of 2026 were directly applicable. No counter-arguments were advanced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework governing access to evaluated answer sheets. It emphasized that the Supreme Court in Sendar Education had unequivocally held that the RTI Act overrides any inconsistent university rules. The Court noted:
"Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations."
The Court further held that the university’s refusal to permit re-verification, despite the petitioner’s marginal failure and the absence of any procedural safeguard, amounted to arbitrariness under Article 14. The potential deprivation of a medical career, a fundamental aspect of livelihood, triggered the protection of Article 21. The court distinguished this from cases involving bulk re-evaluation or merit-based grading, noting that re-verification is a mere clerical check for calculation errors, not a re-assessment of answers.
The court also relied on its own recent precedent in W.P. No. 585 of 2026, where a similar relief was granted to a student failing by one mark. The consistency of judicial approach reinforced the principle that procedural fairness must accompany high-stakes academic outcomes.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court directed the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to permit re-verification of the petitioner’s Physiology answer sheet upon payment of the requisite fee. The Grievance Committee must process the request promptly, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling under the RTI Act and the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 21. No costs were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Re-Verification Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners representing students in professional exams must now assert the right to re-verification under the RTI Act, even if university rules are silent or restrictive.
- Marginal failures (1 - 3 marks) in licensing or professional exams (MBBS, BAMS, B.Pharm, etc.) trigger constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14 and 21.
- Universities cannot rely on internal policies to deny access to answer sheets when the RTI Act provides a statutory right.
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable
- Institutions must establish clear, accessible grievance mechanisms for re-verification requests.
- Delay in processing such requests, especially near academic deadlines, may attract writ jurisdiction.
- Courts will treat failure in professional courses as a deprivation of livelihood, elevating the standard of procedural fairness required.
Precedent Binding Across Professional Exams
- The Sendar Education principle now applies uniformly across medical, engineering, and other regulated professional examinations.
- Students need not wait for university policy changes; they may directly invoke the RTI Act and seek judicial intervention if denied access.
- Legal aid clinics and student associations should proactively inform candidates of this right before final results are declared.
