1 hour ago
4
ARTICLE AD BOX
AI Image Used For Representational Purpose Only
KOLKATA: The Calcutta high court on February 18, 2026, refused to promote an MBA student of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIM-C) to the second year, despite the student suffering from schizophrenia.
The court held that the institution is best placed to decide a student’s academic welfare, and parents should act in a supportive capacity rather than making it a matter of ego, as overriding institutional decisions could set a wrong precedent for the student. The judgment emphasized that awarding a degree despite poor grades and attendance could send a negative message to the broader student community.Case BackgroundThe petitioner is an MBA student at IIM-C with a diagnosed mental disability (schizophrenia).
He claimed that his Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) was unfairly reduced from 4.2 to 3.7 due to grade adjustments under Rules 14(h)(i) and 14(h)(iii)(d) of the IIM-C MBA Programme Rules and Guidelines (June 2024).As a result, the institution directed him to repeat the first year and denied him participation in placement activities.The student approached the Calcutta High Court seeking promotion to the second year of the MBA programme without repeating the first year.
The first-year academic performance included missed exams due to hospitalization and health issues. Make-up exams were conducted, resulting in an unadjusted CGPA of 4.44 and an adjusted CGPA of 3.38, below the required 4.50.The petitioner requested consideration of his grades without adjustment and argued that repeating the first year would have adverse mental health and social consequences.Case ObservationsJustice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that:The student had poor overall attendance (60% in the first year, 20% in the second year).The petitioner did not attend classes for either the repeated first year (62nd batch) or the second year (61st batch) and appeared in a hurry to obtain the degree.Medical certificates showed the student’s mental condition was controlled and included minor ailments such as stomach problems and viral fever.Institutions are best placed to determine the welfare of students, and parental interference should be supportive rather than confrontational.Granting promotion or a degree under these circumstances would send the wrong message to the student community.Sympathy or compassion should not override academic rules, and in case of doubt, the benefit should go to the institution, consistent with precedents such as Shubham Pal & Ors. vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr..Petitioner and Respondent SubmissionsPetitioner:
- Claimed he was unfairly denied promotion despite medical issues impacting attendance and performance.
- Argued that his unadjusted CGPA met the promotion criteria and that adjusted grades were unjust.
- Highlighted mental health issues, lack of social adjustment, and the potential negative impact of repeating the first year.
- Sought immediate promotion to the second year and participation in placement.
Respondent (IIM-C):
- Submitted that the petitioner’s academic performance was below the required CGPA (4.50).
- Stated the student missed several exams and was allowed make-up exams, resulting in 'C+' grades where he had failed.
- Argued that the student’s attendance and performance throughout the first year were poor.
- Emphasized adherence to MBA programme rules, including repetition of first year for students with insufficient CGPA or attendance.
- Noted the petitioner had agreed to join the 62nd batch but did not attend classes, instead approaching the High Court.
Court OrderThe petitioner’s request to be promoted to the second year of the 61st batch was rejected.The petitioner was not eligible for the 62nd batch due to non-attendance. The student was allowed to register for the 63rd batch, with the institution considering his fees sympathetically if he chooses to continue.The court held that granting a degree under these circumstances would undermine academic standards and set a negative precedent.Sympathy or compassion could not override the institution’s authority in academic matters.
The interim order allowing participation in Term V classes was vacated, and all connected applications were disposed of.Key TakeawaysInstitutions are the primary authority in determining student welfare and academic progression. Parents’ role should be supportive, not confrontational, to avoid setting a negative example.Poor attendance and grades cannot be overridden solely on grounds of mental disability.Adjusted grades are critical for academic eligibility; unadjusted grades cannot substitute when below required thresholds. Sympathy or compassion cannot influence court decisions in academic disputes where rules and regulations are clearly defined.Read full order:
English (US) ·