The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a petitioner who is both a lawyer and a Ph.D. scholar for repeatedly making uncalled for allegations against senior faculty members despite having earlier categorically stated that such allegations were not being pressed.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that despite repeated requests by the Court to desist from making such allegations and to pursue her academic course, the petitioner persisted with unwarranted litigation premised on allegations that had been withdrawn or not pressed by her earlier.
The Bench noted that on March 24, 2026, at the petitioner's request, the Court had appointed a senior advocate to assist her, as she was a practising lawyer before the High Court. The writ petition was thereafter allowed on May 19, 2026, permitting the petitioner to submit her synopsis in offline mode within one week, following which the University was directed to allow her to pursue the Ph.D. course in accordance with law.
The Court further noted that the counsel appearing for the University had adopted a fair stance, neither disputing the factual assertions nor raising any serious objection to the relief sought. However, since the petitioner had impleaded professors of the Department of Law in their personal capacities and levelled various allegations against them, she had made a specific statement before the Court that those allegations were not being pressed. Consequently, the allegations were expunged from the record.
The petitioner subsequently filed another application seeking modification of the May 19 order. Upon perusal, the Court found that the application contained several scandalous and wholly uncalled for assertions. When confronted with those assertions, the petitioner, appearing in person, tendered an unconditional apology and sought permission to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh application. Taking a lenient view, the Court permitted her to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh one.
However, the Bench observed that despite the categorical statement made by the petitioner that she would not press allegations against senior faculty members, and despite her earlier unconditional apology concerning the uncalled-for allegations, she had again levelled similar allegations in the present application.
The Court also considered the petitioner's grievance that officials of the Department of Laws had refused to accept her synopsis. Counsel appearing for the University made a specific statement before the Court that the petitioner's synopsis had already been accepted and that the Department had no objection whatsoever to her continuing with the academic course.
The Bench noted that despite this position, and despite repeated requests to the petitioner to desist from making uncalled-for allegations against senior faculty members and pursue her academic course, she appeared to be interested in persisting with litigation founded on allegations which she had earlier not pressed or withdrawn.
Accordingly, the present application was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000, to be deposited in the PGI Poor Patients Welfare Fund.
The case is titled Aman Rani v. Union of India & Ors.