Litigant should not suffer for court’s lapse; HC regularises BDS student’s admission, degree

Making it clear that litigants should not suffer merely because judicial proceedings were delayed for reasons beyond their control, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the judiciary must adopt a corrective, rather than punitive, stance in matters where such delay was occasioned not by a party’s negligence but by institutional constraints.

Invoking the enduring principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” indicating that no one should be prejudiced by an act of the court, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel held that justice must not only be done, but manifestly seen to be done, particularly when court-ordered interim relief has been enjoyed by a litigant for an extended period due to systemic delay in final adjudication.

The Bench asserted that the court had a solemn duty to ensure that interim protections — granted to preserve the substratum of justice — did not become illusory following judicial delay. The judgment came in an appeal filed by a student whose admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course had been annulled through a communication issued on February 2, 2017, on the ground that she did not meet the eligibility criteria of securing 50 per cent marks in physics, chemistry, and biology.

Her counsel Bikramjit Singh Patwalia and Abhishek Masih told the Bench that the student, who had scored 49.66 per cent, had been allowed to continue studies under interim orders passed on March 1, 2017, December 5, 2023, and April 1, 2025, during which time she completed the course and was awarded her degree.

Holding that she could not be penalised at this belated stage for an issue still pending judicial resolution, the court declared that the passage of time due to the court’s own process in such situations must not be used to strip the litigant of rights accrued under interim orders.

“Writ Courts are not merely passive arbiters but active guardians of equitable dispensation. It is duty-bound to obviate the possibility of a litigant being rendered remediless on account of procedural inertia,” the Bench observed, cautioning against a “jurisprudence of attrition” where the mere lapse of time could nullify a party’s legitimate claim.

The Bench added it would be “manifestly unjust as also inequitable to annul or invalidate such an admission at this belated stage,” particularly since no fraudulent practice was attributed to the appellant and no other candidate was displaced in the process. The court noted that the seat had otherwise remained vacant and no third-party rights had been affected.

Reinforcing the need for equitable discretion, the court added: “The settled position of law militates against unsettling a status quo that has endured over a significant period, especially where the equities so palpably favour the appellant.”

Referring to Supreme Court precedents in different cases, including Jang Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Zaid Sheikh and Prabhjit Singh Soni, the Bench noted that the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” was not only a time-honoured doctrine but also a necessary instrument for delivering substantive justice when judicial delays threaten to undo interim safeguards.

“The withdrawal of such interim relief, after it has matured into a de facto entitlement, would be akin to stripping armour from a soldier mid-battle, after having led him onto the battlefield under its shield,” the court remarked.