Karnataka High Court

Rahul H M vs Registrar (Evaluation) on 25 January, 2025

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                                          -1-
                                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451
                                                                    WP No. 104890 of 2024




                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                                  DHARWAD BENCH
                                                        TH
                                                                                    R
                                    DATED THIS THE 25        DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                       BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 104890 OF 2024 (EDN-EX)
                            BETWEEN:
                            RAHUL H.M.,
                            AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
                            R/O. #143, B. HOSAHALLO,
                            SARJAPUR CIRLCE, TALUK: ANEKAL.
                                                                              ...PETITIONER
                            (BY MRS. GAYATRI S.R. ADVOCATE FOR
                                SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
                            1.   REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
                                 KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
                                 NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.

                            2.   THE PRINCIPAL,
                                 SRI. KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH LAW COLLEGE,
                                 OORUGAM K.G.F. HUBBALLI-580025.
                                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
                            (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High Court of
                                R2-IS SERVED)
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.01.29 11:44:08
+0530




                                 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                            OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
                            CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR
                            DIRECTION,    QUASHING      ORDER      NO.KSLU/MPC/DEC-2023
                            (MARCH/APRIL)/593   DATED     01.07.2024  PASSED   BY   THE
                            RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

                                 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
                            WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451
                                         WP No. 104890 of 2024




                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

(a) Issue writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction, quashing order No.KSLU/MPC/Dec-2023 (March/April)/593 dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 produced as Annexure-D.

(b) Issue such other writ, orders or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Petitioner was the first year LLB student studying in

respondent No.2-College. Examinations have been

conducted for the first semester for legal method in

the month of March/April, 2024. On 12/4/2024, when

the petitioner was writing his examination for the

subject legal method, it is alleged that the Flying

Squad entered the examination hall and confiscated

the examination papers and hall ticket of the

petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to write the

exam.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

3. The petitioner contended that he had not committed

any malpractice, he alleges that the Flying Squad and

the officers of the college had forcefully asked the

petitioner to leave the examination hall and took a

signature on certain papers without explaining the

contents thereof or permitting the petitioner to read

the contents thereof.

4. On 20/6/2023, the petitioner was issued notice to

appear before the Malpractice Committee on

29/5/2024, when the petitioner appeared before the

1st respondent-Malpractice Committee, it is alleged

that the said committee without conducting any kind

of enquiry directed the petitioner and other students

to sign some papers, which they were not even

allowed to go through. The petitioner signed the said

papers, subsequently the petitioner was shocked to

note that vide order dated 01.07.2024 the petitioner

was not allowed to take the next available

examination besides forfeiting his performance in the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

examination, in which, he is alleged to have

committed malpractice and further that he should not

be allowed to keep the term for the next higher

semester/year or pursue the any other alternative

course till the above punishment is completed. It is

challenging said order dated 01.07.2024, the

petitioner is before this Court.

5. Miss. Gayathri S.R., learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the respondent-University has also

the Malpractice Committee have acted in a high

handed manner and have prevailed upon the

petitioner to sign blank documents, without

permitting the petitioner to read the same or

furnishing copy thereof and on that basis action is

taken against the petitioner. She relies on the

Notification dated 19.07.2024 issued by the

examination section of the Karnataka State Law

University, Hubballi (for short, 'KSLU') to contend

that the ordinance governing malpractice has not

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

been complied with by the respondents. The detailed

procedure which has been prescribed therein has not

been followed and without doing so, punishment has

been imposed on the petitioner.

6. She also relies upon a decision of the coordinate

bench of this Court dated 28.08.2023 passed in Writ

Petition No.103725/2022, more particularly para

No.10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for

easy reference:

"10. If the petitioner-student knew the consequences of what she is signing perhaps she would not have, as it is ostensible that she was asked to sign on the dotted lines, where the punishment is also indicated The punishment is indicated in terms of the recommendation of the Malpractice Committee, it is an admitted fact that the recommendation of the Malpractice Committee was never ever communicated to the petitioner, it a student did not know the consequence of what she is doing i.e., signing on pre- typed matter, it can hardly be said that it is in consonance with law, as a consequence of signing on the document is not made known the petitioner. The petitioner was still a student of 3rd Semester of Law.

7. She submits that the coordinate bench of this Court

has come to a categorical conclusion that if a

signature of a student where to be taken on a pre-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

typed matter, the same could not be said to be an

acceptance of guilt on part of the concerned student.

8. She relies on the second portion of para 12 of the

said Judgment, which is extracted below for easy

reference :

"The ordinance depicts elaborate procedure to be followed for debarring a student on account their malpractice. The procedure as stipulated, if pitted on the facts narrated hereinabove, it would become unmistably clear that the student is not afforded any opportunity, as is provided under the aforesaid ordinance, which deals with conducting enquiry and reporting. If the student is not afforded all the opportunity that is to be afforded in terms of the ordinance, the resultant order which debars the petitioner would become unsustainable, and the unsustainability would lead to its obliteration. Learned counsel for the respondent who has laid much emphasis on the admission of the student in the teeth of the aforesaid fact is untenable."

9. She submits that the elaborate procedure prescribed

under the aforesaid ordinance has not been followed.

The co-ordinate bench has come to a conclusion that

no punishment as that done in the present case could

have been imposed on both the above grounds. She

submits that the petition is required to be allowed

and the prayers sought for be granted.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

10. Learned counsel Sri K.L.Patil appearing for

respondent No.1 would submit that the entire

process has been followed, notice had been issued to

the petitioner through the college has admittedly

being served, the petitioner has admittedly appeared

before the disciplinary committee. The disciplinary

committee having enquired with petitioner, the

petitioner has categorically accepted the allegations

and there is acceptance that micro xerox material

was available with the student. Thus he submits that

when there is a categorical admission by the student

himself of the allegations made, there will be no

requirement of further enquiry. Relying on the

admission made by the student, the University and

the Malpractice Committee has made necessary

recommendation and in that background, he submits

that the requirement of law and procedure have been

complied with.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the papers.

12. There are several matters of such malpractices,

which come up before this Court and it is found in

most of the cases that the University relies upon

alleged confession on part of the students and in

most of these cases, a preformatted proceedings

detailing out the details of the student, a brief

description of the enquiry proceedings as also the

punishment imposed are all found on the same sheet

of paper and these are alleged to be signed by the

students of their own free will and volition. This so

called confession is not on a paper or not in the

handwriting of the student, but is typed by the

Malpractice Committee, on which, the student has

signed or is asked to sign.

13. These aspects touching upon the future career of a

student are required to be dealt with by the

University in a transparent manner. So that on the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

face of records, it would be seen and ascertained that

the necessary procedures have been followed, the

principles of natural justice as also the procedure

prescribed under relevant ordinance are complied

with.

14. In the present case, the procedure which has been

followed does not inspire any confidence and as held

by the coordinate bench of this Court in the

W.P.No.103725/2022, merely signing on a dotted

line or in the place denoted for signature of the

candidate, in the punishment order or in the

proceedings of the Malpractice Committee, in my

considered opinion, would not comply with the

requirements of the ordinance.

15. The aspect of malpractices in examination is also a

very serious issue, inasmuch as if some of the

candidates were to resort to any malpractice, they

would derive undue benefit which they would not be

entitled to and this being at the cost of the other

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

students, who have followed the applicable rules. In

my considered opinion, the aspect of malpractice in

an examination not only is a issue in person as

regards the candidate, but is an issue in rem as

regards all the candidates appearing in the

examination. No student can or should be permitted

to take undue advantage of any malpractice at the

cost of the other students have taken up the

examination.

16. Today in the hyper competitive environment, which is

in existence in all fields of education and more often

than not it is only on the basis of marks, which are

secured that future education could be pursued by a

student. Since it is those marks which would be

taken into consideration for applying and being

entitled for a seat, these aspects have far reaching

implications.

17. Furthermore, when during the course of interviews

for employment or the like, it is the marks which are

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

secured in the examination which are also looked

into. In most cases, there being cut off marks

prescribed for either admission for further education

or for employment.

18. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered

opinion that the General Directions would have to be

issued to the University to safeguard the sanctity of

examination, so as to make available a level playing

field for all students, the University would have to

formulate necessary guidelines and or Standard

operating procedure in that regards, while doing so

the following amongst other things can be taken into

consideration. As such the following General

Directions are issued:

18.1. Conduct of examination,

18.1.1. The process of examination itself would

have to be conducted in a transparent

manner and towards this end the

University would have to make use of the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

available new technologies so as to

establish such transparency.

18.1.2. One of the modes could be use of closed

Circuit Television (CCTV) in all the

examination halls, recording the entire

process of examination so as to ascertain

if indeed any malpractice has been

committed by any student or not. It is

needless to say that these CCTV cameras

would have to be of sufficient high

resolution covering the entire examination

hall and the examination centre, the video

recording thereof is to be on a real time

basis uploaded to a server so that there is

no manipulation of the said recording.

18.1.3. In the event of any allegations being

made against any particular student of

malpractice, this video recording could be

used as evidence either to prove such

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

malpractice or to disprove the allegation

of malpractice.

18.2. Invigilators : Invigilators would have to be

provided with high resolution body worn

cameras so that their movement in the

examination hall or the examination centre is

also recorded on a real time basis and uploaded

to a server to be verified when allegations are

made.

18.3. Jammers: It would be required for jammers to

be installed at the examination hall and the

centre so that any communication to and from

the examination hall by any student does not

take place by using radio frequency,

microwaves and or mobile phones.

18.4. Flying Squads: In the event of any Flying

Squad visiting the examination hall and centre,

the officials of the Flying Squad to also be

provided with high resolution body worn

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

cameras, which would record their progress and

their conduct and progress in the examination

centre and examination hall. These videos are

also to be uploaded on a real time basis to the

server so that the same cannot be manipulated.

18.5. Malpractice Proceedings: Proceedings if

initiated against a student on account of

malpractice. notice to be served to the student

detailing out the allegations by way of email.

The email ID of the students having been

secured by the College and University at the

time of admission itself and the said email ID

constituting valid official email ID for purpose of

communication between the College and or the

University on the one hand and the student on

the other.

18.6. The statements of the students to be video

recorded and uploaded on the server on a real

time basis so that there is no manipulation.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

18.7. The proceedings before the Malpractice

Committee to be also video recorded in order to

ascertain, if the student has been forced to sign

any document and or the same is voluntarily

done.

18.8. The above recordings and processing of the

recordings to be in terms of Section 105 of the

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and

such other provisions as may be applicable

there too.

19. The Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the Karnataka

State Law University to formulate necessary Rules in

relation to the above and issue the same making it

applicable to all colleges coming within the

jurisdiction or affiliated to the said University and for

the above to be implemented in a time bound

manner.

20. In the present case in view of my findings that the

proceedings before the Malpractice Committee does

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1451

not inspire confidence. The Malpractice Committee

would have to be directed to redo the entire process

by complying with the requirements of the ordinance

issued under Section 48(1)(d) of the KSLU Act, 2009.

Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) A writ of certiorari is issued. The impugned

order No.KSLU/MPC/Dec-2023 (March/

April)/593 dated 01.07.2024 passed by the

1st respondent vide Annexure-D is hereby

quashed.

(iii) Matter is remitted to the Malpractices

Committee to redo the process of enquiry in

accordance with the Ordinance Governing

Malpractice by Candidates Appearing in

Examination and Officials/Supervisory Staff,

Punishment and Procedure under Section