Gujarat high court sets aside IIM Ahmedabad’s expulsion of 3 students
The high court rejected the institute’s stand, saying the manual gave students two years to complete the coursework, with an additional year to meet the required standards
The Gujarat high court has set aside the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA)’s expulsion of three students after they were denied promotion from the first to the second year coursework in the Doctoral Programme in Management (DPM), saying the institute had no power to do so under its manual.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel said the institute had no power to remove students at the end of the first year for academic shortfall. He added the expulsion orders issued on June 7 and confirmed in appeal on June 18 were without the authority of law. The court order dated October 13 was uploaded online on December 9.
The three, Abhilasha Kumar, Atul Gupta, and Uthara PK, were asked on May 22 to explain within 24 hours why their candidature for the second year should not be withdrawn for failing to meet the promotion requirements.
The institute’s executive committee ordered the expulsions for academic shortcomings. The students appealed, but the institute director rejected the appeals.
Advocates Anand Yagnik and Biju Nair, who appeared for the students, told the court that the DPM Manual requires the institute to review, rectify, and take other remedial steps for minor academic shortfalls, and that these measures should have been applied before directing the students to leave.
They said the manual did not allow expulsion for academic shortfall at the end of the first year of coursework. One student received a poor performance rating after citing references generated through Artificial Intelligence in her assignment, which were later found to be fake.
The students argued that even in such circumstances, they should have been heard. IIMA maintained that it had complied with the DPM Manual.
The high court rejected the institute’s stand. It held that the manual gave students two years to complete the coursework, with an additional year available to meet the required standards. It added that the removal could be directed only after this period.
Advocate Megha Jani, who appeared for IIMA, told the court that the manual authorised the executive committee to act on academic shortfalls and the students had been heard. She said no prejudice was shown as none questioned their grades.
There was no immediate response to an email to the institute for comments on the court order.
