In the case titled as Aarzoo Aggarwal v. The University of Delhi, The Delhi High Court has observed that “Copying and cheating in examinations are like the Plague. It is a pandemic that 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.”
The judgment was delivered on 26th May 2020 by Honourable Justice Pratibha M. Singh.
Facts of the case
The petition was filed by Aarzoo Aggarwal, who is a final year student of B.A. (H) Economics at Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi. The petitioner challenged 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 canceled.
She prayed that above order be quashed and the University of Delhi be directed to declare her result.
Contention of Petitioner
Petitioner 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. Also, half an hour into the commencement of the examination, the Petitioner pleads that she realized that the placards were in her pouch, and she herself voluntarily called the invigilator and gave the same to the invigilator.
According to Petitioner, despite her having voluntarily done so, the invigilator accused her of cheating. She submitted that there were three invigilators in the examination hall and none of the students could have copied even for 30 seconds.
Contention of Respondent/University of Delhi
Counsel for the Respondent alleged that the Petitioner has not disclosed the fact that she has admitted to have carried the notes for examination. He also relied 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 indeed used by the candidate in answering the paper.
Petitioner had also agreed for further action to be taken against her in terms of the “Instructions For the Candidates Appearing in University Examinations”. The Counselling Committee, after interacting and counseling the Petitioner, had arrived at the 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.
Decision of the Court
The court on analysis of documents and evidence observed that true facts are contrary to the submission raised by Petitioner. And, the submission that the Petitioner had voluntarily surrendered her notes was factually wrong.
The Court recorded that it 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, the Court while taking note of the unethical conduct of the Petitioner, decided not to take any further action against the Petitioner.
The Court upheld the University’s decision to cancel the entire examination of the Petitioner.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws
Share this Document :Picture Source :
