Introduction:
The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with the cancellation of a student’s provisional admission to a B.Tech course after finding that the scorecard submitted by him to the university materially differed from the authentic scorecard available with the Maharashtra Health and Technical Common Entrance Test (MHT-CET) Cell. The Division Bench comprising Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Farhan Dubash held that the integrity of an examination process is fundamental to a merit-based admission system and that no desire to secure admission to a professional course can justify reliance upon an altered or fabricated examination record.
The ruling was delivered in Shubham Vijay Mangire v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 9114 of 2026, concerning the petitioner’s provisional admission to a B.Tech programme at MIT-World Peace University (MIT-WPU), Pune. The controversy arose when the University noticed a discrepancy between the MHT-CET scorecard produced by the student at the time of admission and the scorecard subsequently available on the official MHT-CET portal.
The petitioner had secured provisional admission on the basis of the scorecard submitted to the University. According to that document, the percentile reflected in the two attempts was substantially higher. However, the scorecard subsequently uploaded on the MHT-CET portal showed considerably lower figures. Since admission to professional courses is dependent substantially upon merit demonstrated through entrance examinations, the discrepancy raised serious questions concerning the authenticity of the document relied upon by the student.
The University consequently cancelled the provisional admission. The student challenged the University’s decision before the Bombay High Court, seeking judicial intervention against the cancellation of his admission.
Considering the seriousness of the discrepancy, the Division Bench directed the MHT-CET Cell to examine the two scorecards and report to the Court regarding their authenticity. The inquiry conducted by the CET Cell produced a significant finding. It concluded that the scorecards relied upon by the petitioner had not been generated by the CET Cell and had been tampered with or fabricated.
The difference was not merely technical or attributable to a minor clerical error. The scorecard relied upon by the petitioner showed marks of 78.874707 and 73.5482364 for the two attempts. In contrast, the authentic scorecard available with the MHT-CET Cell showed the marks as 7.8474707 and 13.5482364 respectively. The difference was therefore substantial and had the effect of transforming a low score into a significantly higher one.
The Court accepted the report submitted by the MHT-CET Cell and considered the circumstances to be deeply disturbing. It observed that the examination process for professional courses is designed to determine merit and allocate limited educational opportunities among competing candidates. The reliability of that system depends upon the authenticity of examination records and the honesty of the candidates participating in it.
The Court stressed that manipulation of marks, percentiles or scorecards is not merely an irregularity affecting one candidate. Such conduct potentially undermines the fairness of the entire admission process because professional course seats are limited and are distributed on the basis of comparative merit. If a candidate obtains an advantage through an unauthorised alteration of examination records, that advantage necessarily operates to the detriment of students who have competed honestly.
At the same time, the Division Bench exercised caution in dealing with the possibility of criminal wrongdoing. It expressly clarified that the writ proceedings were not criminal proceedings and that the Court was not determining whether the petitioner himself had committed a particular criminal offence. The Court confined its conclusions to the authenticity of the scorecards and the petitioner’s entitlement to relief against the University’s decision.
The Court also left open the question of whether any disciplinary, administrative or criminal proceedings should be initiated. It directed that if the University, the State CET Cell or another competent authority considered it necessary to investigate how the disputed scorecard came into existence or came to be used, such inquiry should be conducted independently and in accordance with law.
The decision therefore rests upon a clear distinction between two questions. The first was whether the document relied upon by the petitioner was authentic and whether he was entitled to maintain his admission on that basis. The second was whether any person should be held criminally or otherwise liable for the creation or use of the disputed document. The Court answered the first question against the petitioner while deliberately leaving the second question open for determination by the competent authorities.
The case highlights the importance of integrity in competitive examinations, particularly where examination results determine access to professional education. The Court recognised that students face intense competition and that disappointment following a lower-than-expected result is understandable. However, it made clear that personal circumstances or the desire to obtain admission cannot legitimise an impermissible method of improving one’s apparent academic performance.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, Shubham Vijay Mangire, challenged the cancellation of his provisional admission to the B.Tech course at MIT-World Peace University, Pune. He sought judicial intervention against the University’s decision and questioned the basis on which his admission had been withdrawn.
The petitioner’s case centred on the scorecard that had been submitted to the University for securing admission. The document reflected a higher percentile and higher marks in the relevant MHT-CET attempts. On the strength of that document, the University had granted him provisional admission to the professional course.
The petitioner sought to resist the University’s subsequent action after a different scorecard appeared on the official MHT-CET portal. The discrepancy between the documents became the basis for cancellation of his provisional admission.
Although the exact circumstances in which the disputed scorecard came into existence were not conclusively determined in the writ proceedings, the petitioner sought relief against the immediate consequence of the discrepancy, namely the loss of his provisional admission.
The petitioner’s challenge required the Court to consider whether the University was justified in relying upon the MHT-CET Cell’s records over the document produced by the student and whether the cancellation of admission could be sustained without a determination of who was responsible for the alleged manipulation.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sandeep Pathak.
On the other side, the respondents defended the University’s action and relied upon the findings of the MHT-CET Cell. The CET Cell’s position was that the disputed scorecards relied upon by the petitioner were not documents generated by the official examination authority.
The MHT-CET authorities conducted an inquiry after the High Court specifically directed them to examine the discrepancy. Their report concluded that the scorecards relied upon by the petitioner had been tampered with or fabricated.
The numerical difference between the two sets of marks was central to the respondents’ case. The document submitted by the petitioner showed marks of 78.874707 and 73.5482364 for the two attempts, whereas the authentic scorecard available with the CET Cell recorded marks of 7.8474707 and 13.5482364.
The respondents therefore maintained that the document relied upon by the petitioner could not be treated as a genuine examination record. Since the admission had been granted on the basis of that document, the University was justified in cancelling the provisional admission.
The MHT-CET authorities were represented by Advocates Sameer Khedekar and Mayuri Andhale, while Assistant Government Pleader Savina Crasto appeared for the State.
The respondents’ position also rested on the larger principle that admission to professional courses must be based upon authentic merit records. An educational institution cannot be compelled to continue an admission that was secured on the basis of a document which the competent examination authority does not recognise as genuine.
The respondents’ case did not necessarily require the Court to make a finding that the petitioner himself had fabricated the scorecard. It was sufficient, for the purpose of determining the writ petition, to establish that the document relied upon was not an authentic scorecard generated by the MHT-CET Cell.
This distinction became important in the final decision. The respondents could defend the cancellation of admission on the basis of the document’s lack of authenticity without requiring the High Court, in a writ proceeding, to determine the identity of the person who had manipulated or fabricated it.
The authorities also retained the position that any further inquiry into the origin or use of the disputed document could be undertaken by the competent authorities in accordance with law.
The dispute before the Court was therefore not simply a contest between a student’s right to continue his education and an institution’s decision to cancel admission. It involved the integrity of a public examination and the fairness of a competitive admission process.
Where admission is dependent upon a candidate’s percentile or marks, the authenticity of those marks becomes fundamental. A candidate cannot claim an equitable right to retain an admission when the very document establishing the merit on which the admission was granted has been found to be unauthentic.
At the same time, the Court recognised the need to avoid prejudging criminal liability. The fact that a scorecard is fabricated does not automatically establish, within writ proceedings, that the student personally committed the fabrication or any particular offence. That question requires an appropriate inquiry and, where necessary, proceedings before the competent authority.
The respondents therefore succeeded on the narrower question concerning the authenticity of the scorecard and the legality of the University’s cancellation of provisional admission, while the broader question of individual culpability was left open.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Farhan Dubash dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the University’s decision to cancel the petitioner’s provisional admission.
A significant step taken by the Court during the proceedings was to direct the MHT-CET Cell to investigate the discrepancy between the two scorecards. Rather than relying solely upon the University’s assertion or the student’s explanation, the Bench sought verification from the competent examination authority itself.
The MHT-CET Cell subsequently submitted its report to the Court. The report concluded that the scorecards relied upon by the petitioner had not been generated by the CET Cell and had been tampered with or fabricated.
The Court accepted this finding. The numerical differences between the documents provided a particularly compelling basis for doing so. The scorecard relied upon by the petitioner reflected marks of 78.874707 and 73.5482364 in the two attempts. The authentic scorecard produced by the MHT-CET Cell showed marks of 7.8474707 and 13.5482364.
The difference was therefore not a matter of a minor variation in data entry or a discrepancy that could reasonably be dismissed as an administrative mistake. The figures reflected a substantial increase in the marks shown in the document relied upon by the petitioner.
The Court considered these circumstances “deeply disturbing” and expressed concern that such incidents had occurred in the context of admissions to professional courses.
The Bench’s observations were grounded in the nature of competitive examinations. Entrance examinations are conducted precisely to distinguish candidates on the basis of their performance. The resulting marks and percentiles determine the relative position of candidates and, consequently, their eligibility for scarce educational opportunities.
The integrity of the process therefore depends upon the authenticity of the records generated by the examination authority. If marks can be altered after the examination and a candidate can rely upon the altered document to obtain admission, the entire merit-based structure becomes vulnerable.
The Court observed that any attempt to manipulate marks, percentiles or scorecards strikes at the foundation of the examination process. The harm extends beyond the candidate whose admission is questioned because professional course seats are limited. A seat obtained through an inaccurate or manipulated representation of merit may effectively deprive another candidate, who earned a genuine higher position, of an opportunity.
This was an important aspect of the Court’s reasoning. The issue was not merely whether the petitioner had obtained a particular benefit. The Court considered the broader impact on students who participate honestly in the examination and compete on the basis of their actual performance.
The Bench acknowledged that competition for admission to professional courses is intense. It also recognised that students may experience considerable anxiety when examination results are lower than expected and that disappointment following such results is understandable.
However, the Court drew a firm line between understanding a student’s disappointment and condoning an impermissible method of overcoming it. The desire to secure admission cannot justify manipulation of an examination record.
The Court’s observation has broader relevance to educational administration. A merit-based admission system can function only if the information used to determine merit is trustworthy. Universities and admission authorities must therefore be entitled to verify the authenticity of documents submitted by candidates, particularly when those documents conflict with the records maintained by the competent examination authority.
The Court consequently found no basis to interfere with the University’s decision to cancel the provisional admission.
Importantly, however, the Bench did not make a finding that the petitioner himself had committed a criminal offence. It expressly stated that the proceedings before it were writ proceedings and not criminal proceedings.
The Court recognised that determining criminal liability requires consideration of additional questions, including who created the disputed document, how it came into existence, who used it and with what knowledge or intention. Those matters could not appropriately be conclusively determined merely from the material before the Court in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the Court carefully limited its findings. Its conclusion was confined to the authenticity of the disputed scorecards and the petitioner’s entitlement to relief against the University’s cancellation decision.
This distinction demonstrates judicial restraint. The Court was prepared to determine the immediate legal consequence of relying upon an unauthentic document without prejudging questions that might arise in future disciplinary, administrative or criminal proceedings.
The Bench therefore directed that if the University, the State CET Cell or any other competent authority considered it necessary to investigate how the disputed scorecard came into existence or came to be used, the matter could be examined independently and in accordance with law.
This leaves open the possibility of further proceedings, but without the High Court itself determining culpability at this stage.
The decision also reinforces the principle that provisional admission does not necessarily create an irreversible entitlement where the foundation upon which the admission was granted is subsequently found to be unreliable.
An educational institution granting provisional admission necessarily relies upon documents submitted by the candidate. Where the competent examination authority later establishes that a crucial document is not genuine, the institution cannot ordinarily be required to continue the admission merely because the candidate has already commenced the course.
The University’s action was therefore examined in light of the authenticity of the document and the merit-based nature of the admission process.
The Court’s acceptance of the MHT-CET Cell’s report was also significant because the Cell was the authority responsible for conducting the relevant examination and generating the official scorecards. Its records constituted the appropriate benchmark against which the disputed document could be assessed.
The Court did not treat the existence of two conflicting documents as a matter that automatically required the University to favour the student’s version. Instead, it sought verification from the authority responsible for the examination itself.
Once the CET Cell confirmed that the disputed scorecards had not been generated by it, the basis for the petitioner’s admission was substantially undermined.
The Court’s observations also serve as a warning against the normalisation of examination-related manipulation. The Bench emphasised that such practices cannot be allowed to become routine or go unchecked merely because the stakes involved are high.
The observation is particularly important in professional education. Admission to engineering, medicine, law and other professional courses often depends upon competitive entrance examinations where thousands of students compete for a limited number of seats. The legitimacy of the resulting admissions therefore depends upon a transparent and reliable evaluation system.
If one candidate is able to present an artificially enhanced scorecard, the impact is not limited to the individual. It potentially changes the distribution of seats and affects candidates who have achieved their actual scores honestly.
The Court consequently treated the issue as one involving the integrity of the examination system itself rather than merely an individual dispute concerning admission.
At the same time, the judgment maintains an important procedural safeguard. The Court did not assume that the petitioner was necessarily responsible for the creation of the disputed documents. This is especially significant because a forged document may be created or altered by a person other than the person who ultimately produces it.
The Court’s refusal to prejudge criminal liability ensures that any future proceedings will have to independently establish the relevant facts and legal ingredients.
Thus, the judgment operates on two distinct planes. On the administrative and educational plane, the University was justified in refusing to continue an admission founded upon a scorecard that the examination authority did not recognise as authentic. On the criminal or disciplinary plane, responsibility for the creation or use of the document remains a matter for the competent authorities to investigate.
The Court also rejected the idea that the intensity of competition could justify a departure from the rules governing admissions. Competition may explain why a student might be tempted to seek an advantage, but it cannot transform an impermissible act into a legally protected entitlement.
The ruling therefore places merit and authenticity at the centre of professional admissions. A candidate’s right to be considered for admission is necessarily subject to the requirementthat the information presented to the admission authority be truthful