Delhi High Court
Aarzoo Aggarwal vs University Of Delhi on 26 May, 2020
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR
26.05.2020 19:30
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 11th May, 2020
Date of decision: 26th May, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 2980/2020 and CM APPLs. 10337/2020, 10338/2020,
10350/2020
AARZOO AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person. (M:7042486969)
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mahender Rupal, Advocate.
(M:9811151216)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The hearing was held through video conferencing.
2. Copying and cheating in examinations is like the Plague. It is a
pandemic which can ruin society and the educational system of any country.
If the same is left unchecked or if leniency is shown, the same can have a
deleterious effect. For any country's progress, the integrity of the educational
system has to be infallible. Whether it is paper setters maintaining utmost
confidentiality, students not cheating, invigilators being vigilant, examiners
doing their job with utmost alacrity knowing that the future of students is in
their hands, Universities and colleges not tampering with results - the conduct
of all stakeholders has to reflect commitment and also be unblemished.
3. The present writ petition was filed by Ms. Aarzoo Aggarwal, who is a
final year student of B.A. (H) Economics at Daulat Ram College, University
of Delhi. The petitioner challenges the impugned order of the Respondent -
University of Delhi dated 12th March, 2020 by which the examination of the
Petitioner for the entire Semester has been cancelled. She prays that the said
order be quashed and the University of Delhi be directed to declare her result.
Petitioner's Submissions
4. The Petitioner is currently in her 6th semester. The examination for four
papers of the 5th semester was held in December, 2019. The Petitioner
appeared in all the examinations. The paper in `International Trade' was held
on 3rd December, 2019. The centre for examination was Daulat Ram College
itself. The Petitioner's case is that on the date of the examination she was late
for examination due to traffic. The Petitioner carried her stationery pouch
from her bag and straightway reached her seat. She claims that she had
prepared notes for the examination, which were in the form of placards, and
the said placards mistakenly stayed in her pouch. In a hurry, when the
examination was about to start, she simply took out her pouch and started
writing the examination, without realising that the notes continued to remain
in her pouch. Half an hour into the commencement of the examination, the
Petitioner pleads that she realised that the placards were in her pouch, and she
herself voluntarily called the invigilator and gave the same to the invigilator.
It is her case that despite her having voluntarily done so, the invigilator
accused her of cheating. She submits that there were three invigilators in the
examination hall and none of the students could have copied even for 30
seconds. The Petitioner was then asked to leave the college and was not even
allowed to meet the Principal.
5. Thereafter, the University on 12th March, 2020 has declared the result
of all the candidates except the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims that she does
not endorse any unethical practice, and that she has been representing her
class for the last three years. The Petitioner further states that she was 'bullied'
into signing blank sheets and thereafter, the invigilator asked her to write the
examination, if she wished to. The Petitioner expected that the University
would hear her matter and give her justice before passing of the order dated
12th March, 2020. She received a show cause notice on 13th January, 2020,
and claims to have sought a personal hearing, which was not afforded to her.
Thereafter, on 28th January, 2020, she received an email asking her to visit the
examination building to give a good conduct undertaking, and for counselling.
The Petitioner states that the said email simply puts baseless allegations on
her while seeking the good conduct undertaking. She accordingly submits that
the result of the remaining papers ought to be declared.
6. The matter was first listed on 22nd April, 2020 on which date,
considering the submissions of the Petitioner and the counsel for Delhi
University who appeared on advance copy, the following order was passed:
"6. This Court has heard the submissions of the
Petitioner, who appears in person and that of ld.
counsel for the University of Delhi. The Petitioner
has submitted, upon a query from the Court, that
she is a meritorious student and had scored 96.25%
in her 12th standard examinations. Her aggregate
in the previous semesters is above 60%. She thus
appears to be a meritorious student. Admittedly she
has not been given a hearing in the proceedings
pursuant to the show-cause notice.
7. The incident, which took place on 3rd December,
2019, and the proceedings in the show-cause would
need to be gone into after perusing the records of
the Respondent - University of Delhi. Accordingly,
at this stage, the Respondent is permitted to file a
counter affidavit along with the relevant documents
within a period of two weeks. On the next date, the
University of Delhi shall also place in a sealed
cover before this Court the result of the other three
examinations where the Petitioner had appeared in
her fifth semester. It is the Petitioner's contention
that her results for the said three papers ought to be
declared as she wishes to apply for further studies,
since this is her final year in the B.A. course. This
prayer would be considered on the next date."
The Petitioner expressed urgency as she claimed that she wished to apply for
studies abroad and accordingly a short date was given.
University's Submissions
7. Since the lockdown period was on, ld. counsel for the University
submits that he could not file an affidavit but has produced before this Court
various documents and has made his submissions. Advance copies of the
documents were supplied to the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel submits that the
Petitioner is guilty of completely misleading the Court. He relies upon the
invigilator's report as also the various undertakings, which have been signed
by the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel submits that the Petitioner has, in fact, signed
an undertaking of good conduct and has also been counselled by the experts.
Ld. Counsel alleges that the Petitioner has not disclosed the fact that she has
admitted to have carried the notes for examination. He also relies upon the
expert's report dated 29th January, 2020 submitted by an independent expert
from Sri Aurobindo College, who has compared the answer sheets along with
the notes which were seized and has come to the conclusion that the material
was used by the candidate in answering the paper. Ld. Counsel further
submits that the Petitioner had agreed for further action to be taken against
her in terms of the "Instructions For the Candidates Appearing in University
Examinations" (hereinafter, 'Instructions'). The Counselling Committee,
after interacting and counselling the Petitioner, had arrived at a conclusion
that she was liable to be proceeded with as per 'Part C' of the 'Instructions',
whereas since she apologized, the Committee recommended that she be
proceeded under 'Part B'. It was as per the recommendation of the
Counselling Committee that the impugned order was passed.
Analysis of documents and findings
8. After perusing all the documents filed by the Petitioner and the
documents submitted by the University, it is clear that a meritorious student
like the Petitioner has not been candid and had held back the relevant
documents and important facts before this Court. The Petitioner did not
disclose any of the letters written by her, including an email and several other
relevant facts and documents. The Petitioner, who appeared in person, has
admitted to signing the letter dated 3rd December, 2019. She also admits to
having sent the email dated 16th January, 2020, signed the undertaking for
good conduct dated 4th February, 2020, as also the UFM (unfair means)
Counselling Proforma. In all these documents she has repeatedly admitted
that she had taken notes into the examination hall.
9. The Petitioner tried to take a technical objection by relying upon email
dated 28th January 2020, which called her to appear before the Counselling
committee. The said email appears to have inadvertently mentioned that the
good conduct undertaking and counselling, was in respect of the examination
which was conducted in May - June, 2019, which was incorrect as it clearly
related to the December 2019 examination. The copy of the email dated 28th
January, 2020 was also transmitted by her to the Court Master, and the same
has been taken on record. When asked by the Court as to why she did not
disclose all these documents in her writ petition, the Petitioner claimed that
she was not legally trained. In the writ petition it has been categorically
pleaded that half an hour into the examination, she voluntarily surrendered the
notes to the invigilator. The said averment in the writ reads:
"3. That, the answer scripts were already
distributed. That day, just like all other exams,
petitioner had prepared notes. Those notes were
like placards that petitioner used for revision. Those
placards mistakenly stayed in her pouch. Her pouch
has 2 pockets, she took out the pen from one of the
pockets, but in a hurry and panic due to shortage of
time, the petitioner forgot to check the other pocket
and kept the pouch under the table. After around
half an hour of commencement of the exam, the
petitioner realized that she had brought the notes by
mistake with her in a hurry, inside the hall. She
called the invigilator and gave it to her."
10. The true facts are however to the contrary. The exam was conducted on
3rd December 2019. On the said day, after the invigilator found notes in her
possession, the Petitioner wrote a letter on-spot, in her own handwriting which
reads as under:
"Sir/Ma'am,
I, Aarzoo Aggarwal, daughter of Mahesh Aggarwal,
studying B.A.(H) IIIrd year, Examination Roll
No.17014510001. My answer sheet was taken by
the invigilator as a case of cheating. I by mistake
brought notes with me inside the exam hall. These
notes have full fledged chapters just for learning,
these notes can not be used for cheating as it will
consume lot of time. I have been preparing them for
all my subjects. I was already late for the exam and
it was quite late to submit it. I panicked and just
kept it with me. However, my track record is clean,
no past cheating or indisciplinary case. I did not use
these notes in the exam."
11. The invigilator submitted a report to the authorities on the same day
which is signed by the invigilator, co-signed by another invigilator, and also
bears the signatures of the Superintendent of Daulat Ram College. A perusal
of the invigilator's report on the date of examination shows that the invigilator
found the bundle of papers i.e., her notes, with the Petitioner, at about 12:15
p.m. The examination commenced at 9:30 a.m. and was to end at 12.30pm.
Thus, it was just 15 minutes prior to the end of the examination that the
invigilator detected the notes which the Petitioner had in her possession. It is
clear from a perusal of the invigilator's report that she had kept the notes
below her answer scripts. Thus, the case made out in the writ petition that the
Petitioner had voluntarily surrendered her notes was factually wrong.
12. Thereafter, the University referred a matter to an expert in order to
compare the notes which were seized with the answer sheet of the Petitioner.
The expert report has also been submitted by Swagat Rout from Sri Aurobindo
College. The said report clearly opines that the material has been perused and
that the notes which were seized were relevant and were used by the examinee
in answering question 3(A). The expert gives a categorical affirmation that
the material has been used by the candidate.
13. A show-cause notice was, thereafter, served by the University upon the
Petitioner on 13th January, 2020. In response to the said show cause notice,
the Petitioner replied by email dated 16th January, 2020 as under:
"Case No.148
Roll No.17014510001
Date : 16 January 2020-05-11
Respected sir/maam
I, Aarzoo Aggarwal, student of Daulat Ram College
studying B.A.(H) Economics have been given a
notice concerning use of inappropriate means
during examination.
I would like to sincerely apologize for the same. The
chits found on my desk were my notes which I make
for not only for the paper concerned, but also other
exams. I didn't use the chits in the paper. I brought
them by mistake with me, without any intention to
use them. By the time I found them with me, it was
already late to submit them. In fear of being
charged with cheating I could not submit them to
the investigator.
Moreover, being a third year student I can
confidently claim that my past record has been
clean. I have never adhered to any means of
cheating, neither in internals nor in external
examinations. The university may check the same
with my teachers and college. I have never been
involved in any malpractices.
Therefore I request the university to please consider
my case as a mistake that I couldn't admit due to
fear and forgive me for this mistake. I will be highly
obliged."
14. A perusal of the letter written on-spot dated 3rd December, 2019 by the
Petitioner, as also the email dated 16th January, 2020 clearly shows that the
averments made by her in the writ petition are conscious and deliberate false
statements. However, in both the letter and in the email extracted above, it is
claimed that she did not use the notes and that it was already too late to submit
them to the invigilator by the time she realised she was carrying them. In fact,
in these documents, the Petitioner admits that due to the fear of being charged
for cheating, she did not even submit them to the invigilator.
15. The email dated 28th January, 2020, by which she was asked to appear
for counselling and for furnishing a good conduct undertaking is merely
mentioned in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, however, a copy of the email
was not attached with the writ petition. The Petitioner also failed to mention
in the writ petition that she had been counselled and that she had signed the
'Undertaking For Good Conduct' and 'UFM counselling proforma'. During
the course of hearing, upon a specific question put by the Court, she admitted
her signatures on both these documents, which are dated 4th February, 2020.
16. Both these documents are relevant and are extracted below. The
'Undertaking For Good Conduct' reads as under:
The undertaking extracted above bears the notation of the counsellor -
Professor Shri K. S. Rao, who is a member of the Examination Disciplinary
Committee ('EDC'). The above undertaking clearly shows that the EDC was
of the opinion that the Petitioner deserved to be proceeded as per "Part C" of
the 'Instructions'. However, in view of the Petitioner's apology, the
Committee recommended that she be proceeded under "Part B" which was a
lower punishment.
17. The UFM counselling proforma confirms that she has received
counselling on the demerits of adopting unfair means, and that she would not
adopt any unfair means in examination in future. The same is extracted below:
18. After the issuance of show cause notice and conduct of the Counselling
for the Petitioner, the University issued the impugned order dated 12th March
2020 cancelling the entire examination of the Petitioner for the 5 th Semester,
as per 'Part B' of the 'Instructions'. The said decision reads:
" MEMORANDUM
It has already been communicated through
correspondence on the subject that as per report
received from the Superintendent of the
Examination Centre where Aarzoo Aggarwal has
appeared at the B.A (H) Economics Examination-
2019, the said candidate has resorted to the use of
unfairmeans/disorderly conduct during the
aforesaid examination.
The said candidate had been issued a detailed
show-cause notice on the basis of the report of the
Superintendent the report of the expert who had
gone through the material recovered from his/her
possession as also the statement, if given, at the time
of the incident.
After having considered all documents on record
including the personal hearing (if asked and
granted by the Examination Disciplinary
Committee) the Executive Council of the University
of Delhi having been satisfied to the findings of the
Examination Disciplinary Committee has decided
that for the use of unfairmeans/disorderly
conduct, the said candidate be awarded
punishment under Clause B of the guidelines
circulated to them/ her along with the admission
ticket. The said clause reads as follows:-
CLAUSE 'B': CANCELLATION Of ENTIRE
EXAMINATION
In consequence of the above decision of the
Executive Council, the entire Semester Examination
Nov/Dec-2019 (in all paper and subject) taken by
the said candidate under Roll No. 17014510001
issued to him/her for the examination has been
CANCELLED. Further, if the candidate was also
appearing in any paper(s) of re-appear in that case
the paper(s) of reappear shall be cancelled. He/She
would be eligible to be admitted to this examination
afresh as and when held subsequently only if
otherwise eligible.
The said candidate is advised to contact the
principal of the College last attended by him/her or
the Head of the Institution to which he/she was
enrolled."
19. A perusal of the 'Instructions' makes it clear that in case candidates
resort to unfair means or disorderly conduct, there are various consequences
which are prescribed. Three of the relevant consequences `A', `B' and `C'
read as under:
Part Offence Punishment
A (i) Talking to another candidate or any Cancellation of the
person inside or outside the examination in the
Examination Hall during the paper of the day of
examination hours, without the incident only and
permission of a member of the declaring the result on
supervisory staff, the basis of the
(ii) Committing breach of any other performance of the
direction given to candidates. candidate in the
remaining
papers/subjects. The
candidate shall be
deemed to have
secured zero mark in
the paper so cancelled.
B (i) Keeping in possession papers, books Cancellation of the
or notes or is found having written notes entire examination
on the question paper or on any part of
the clothes worn by him/her or on a part
of his body or table or desk or is found
in possession of ruler and/or
instruments like: Set-squares
protractors, slide rules, etc. with notes
written on them and which notes,
papers or the material written on ruler
or instrument, or on the question paper
or on clothes worn by him/her or any
part of his/her body, table or desk could
be helpful or of assistance to him/her in
answering the paper etc. he/she is
taking or could be helpful or of
assistance to other candidate in that
examination hall, but that candidate has
not attempted to take any assistance
himself/herself or give any assistance
any other candidate from such material.
(ii) Intentionally tearing off the answer
book or a part thereof or a continuation
sheet.
(iii) Deliberately disclosing his/her
identity or making any distinctive mark
in the answer book for that purpose in
contravention of any general rules in
this behalf.
(iv) Using abusive or obscene
language in the answer book.
(v) Misbehaving in connection with the
Superintendent, the Invigilator on duty
and the other Staff working at the
Examination Centre or with any other
candidate in or around the Examination
Centre before, during or after the
examination.
(vi) Leaving the examination room
before expiry of half an hour without the
written permission of the
Superintendent of the Examination
and/or without handing over the answer
book to the Invigilator/Incharge and/or
without signing the attendance sheet.
C Keeping in possession papers, books or Cancellation of the
notes or is found having written notes entire examination
on the question paper or on any part of taken by the candidate
the clothes worn by him/her or on any during the year and
part of his/her body or table or is found further debarring
in possession of foot rule and/or him/her from
instruments like set-squares, appearing at any
protractors, slide rules with notes examination of the
written on them and which notes, University within a
papers, books or the material written span period of one year
on foot rule or instruments, or on the (12 months)
question paper or on clothes worn by
him/her or any part of his/her body,
table or desk etc., could be helpful or of
assistance to him/her in answering the
paper he/she is taking or could be
helpful or of assistance to other
candidates in the examination hall and
if the candidate has made actual use of
material himself/herself or given
assistance thereof to any other
candidate during the examination.
(ii) Assisting or attempting to assist in
any manner whatsoever any other
candidate in answering the question
paper during the examination hours.
(iii) Where the candidate takes
assistance or attempts to take any
assistance from to other candidate or
any other person or from any book,
paper, notes or other material in
answering the question paper during
the examination.
(iv) Where the answer book of the
candidate shows or otherwise
established that he/she has received or
attempts to receive any help from any
other candidate or any source in a
malafide manner or has given help or
attempted to give help to another
candidate in a manner during the
examination hours.
(v) Gross mis-behaviour i.e. threatening
with physical force in connection with
the examination with the
Superintendent , the Invigilator on duty
or any other staff working at the
Examination Centre or with any other
candidate in or around the Examination
Centre before, during or after the
Examination.
(vi) Where the candidate disturbs the
examination or attempts to do so.
(vii) Where the candidate on being
challenged or searched during the
course of examination by the
Superintendent or any member of the
examination staff on duty, swallows a
note or paper or runs with it or is guilty
of causing disappearance or destroying
any such material with the intention of
obliterating the evidence of his/her
having possessed material.
20. As per the above extracted `Instructions', punishment is prescribed for
students resorting to unfair means.
• As per 'Part A', if a candidate is found talking during examination
hours or committing breach of any direction given to the candidates,
the same would result in cancellation of that specific examination. The
candidate would be deemed to have scored `zero' marks in the
cancelled examination and his/her results would be declared on the
basis of his/her performance in the remaining papers/subjects.
• The punishment increases if under 'Part B' a candidate is found with
written notes on his/her person or in his/her possession which could be
of assistance in the examination to the candidate or any other candidate
but the candidate has not attempted to take or give any assistance, or if
the candidate is found indulging in any misconduct mentioned in 'Part
B'. In such a situation, the entire examination would be cancelled -
meaning thereby that the candidate would have to re-appear in all the
examinations of the said semester once again.
• 'Part-C' contemplates a greater degree of misconduct and prescribes
a harsher punishment for the same. Under this part, if written notes,
which could be helpful in the examination to the candidate or any other
candidate, are found in the candidate's possession or on his/her person
and the candidate has made actual use of the notes for himself/herself
or another candidate, or if the candidate indulges in any misconduct
described under 'Part C', the entire examination for the year would be
cancelled for the candidate. The candidate would also be debarred from
appearing in any examination of the University for a period of one year.
21. By these `Instructions' all candidates were made aware of the
consequences of resorting to unfair means. In any event, resorting to unfair
means in examinations is downright impermissible and ought not to be
encouraged at any cost. The Petitioner was no exception. After appearing
before the Counselling committee and after receiving their counselling, she
apologised, leading to imposition of a lesser punishment by the University -
i.e., instead of punishment under 'Part C', she was proceeded under 'Part
B'. The Petitioner has not merely indulged in unfair means, as is evident from
the documents itself, but has also tried to mislead this Court in the writ
petition.
22. Initially, while passing the order dated 22nd April, 2020, this Court had
taken note of the past performance of the Petitioner in her Board examination,
as also in the previous semesters, and after believing her version that she had
voluntarily surrendered the placards to the invigilator, was sympathetic to her
while calling for her result in the other three examinations in a sealed cover.
23. The plea of natural justice i.e., that the Petitioner was not heard in
response to the show-cause notice, has also turned out to be a specious plea.
The Petitioner had written a reply to the show cause notice, but she concealed
the said reply. The Petitioner has also appeared before the EDC and signed
the 'Undertaking For Good Conduct'. She has apologized after receiving
counselling and the Committee has also considered her case sympathetically.
The University could do no more. None of these facts were disclosed in the
writ petition or during oral submissions. The case of the Petitioner, as pleaded
in the writ petition, is false to her knowledge and conceals more than it
reveals.
24. In Director (Studies) v Vaibhav Singh Chauhan (2009) 1 SCC 59 the
Supreme Court while dealing with malpractice in examinations, observes:
"9. In this connection learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that there was no evidence to
show that the respondent had actually used the said
slip of paper found in his possession. In our opinion,
this is wholly irrelevant. All that is relevant is
whether the slip of paper found in the possession of
the examinee pertained to the examination paper in
question. If it does, then it is a malpractice. In this
particular case, the said slip of paper was brought
into the examination hall and was found to be in the
possession of the examinee while the examination
was going on. Whether the respondent actually used
that slip or not is irrelevant. This view finds support
from the decision of this Court in C.B.S.E. v.
Vineeta Mahajan and Anr. AIR1994 SC 733 .
Moreover, this is also borne out by Sub-rule (1) of
the Examination Rules, quoted above.
10. In the present case there is no doubt that the slip
of paper contained material pertaining to the
examination in question. Hence, we cannot accept
the submission of Shri Lalit Bhasin that the
respondent was not guilty of malpractice since he
was not found to have used that piece of paper.
...
18. The learned Single Judge in the interim order
has then emphasized on the fact that the respondent
had apologized and had confessed to the possession
of the chit. In our opinion this again is a misplaced
sympathy. We are of the firm opinion that in
academic matters there should be strict discipline
and malpractices should be severely punished. If
our country is to progress we must maintain high
educational standards, and this is only possible if
malpractices in examinations in educational
institutions are curbed with an iron hand.
...
25. Moreover, the respondent/examinee has been
given the minimum punishment under the rules and
no lesser punishment could have been imposed,
except in exceptional circumstances. It is true that
when a person confesses his guilt it is often treated
as a mitigating circumstance and calls for lesser
punishment if that is permissible. However, this is
not an absolute rule and will not apply in all kinds
of cases. In particular, as stated above, in academic
matters there should be no leniency at all if our
country is to progress. Apart from that, the
respondent had been given the minimum
punishment under Rule 9.2 and we fail to
understand how a lesser punishment could have
given to him, except by exercising discretion in a
particular case. This is not that kind of exceptional
case, and no sympathy was called for.
...
33. Before parting with this case, we would like to
refer to the decisions of this Court which has
repeatedly held that the High Court should not
ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in
educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by
educational institutions vide Board of High School
& Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad and
Anr. v. Bagleshwar Prasad and Anr. [1963] 3 SCR
767 , Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha and Ors. v. Chancellor,
Allahabad University and Ors. (1980)IILLJ175SC ,
Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University
and Anr. [1986] 2 SCR 912 . We wish to reiterate
the view taken in the above decisions, and further
state that the High Courts should not ordinarily
interfere with the functioning and order of the
educational authorities unless there is clear
violation of some statutory rule or legal principle.
Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations
of educational institutions and no sympathy or
leniency should be shown to candidates who resort
to unfair means in the examinations."
25. The documents produced by the University show that resorting to
unfair means does not elude even meritorious students. This case is an
example of why the merit or otherwise of a student in the past is completely
irrelevant while considering malpractices such as these. This Court ideally
could have proceeded with the Petitioner with stricter action, considering the
false submissions made, wrong affidavit that has been filed, as also the
incorrect submissions made during the oral hearing. However, considering the
age of the Petitioner, and the fact that she is still a student, this Court, while
taking note of the unethical conduct of the Petitioner, has decided not to take
any further action against the Petitioner.
26. The present case is definitely one which does not call for interference
especially in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional remedies, in favour of
the Petitioner, who has resorted to unethical practices and has not been
truthful to this Court. Accordingly, while confirming the punishment meted
out to the Petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed. The result for the
remaining three papers which has been submitted by the University to the
Court Master, has been perused by the Court. However, this Court is of the
opinion that no directions in respect of the same are called for. The
University's decision to cancel the entire examination is upheld.
27. The writ petition is dismissed in the above terms. All pending
applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2020
dk/Rg
