Karnataka High Court grants relief to IIM Bangalore students found cheating in online exams

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIM-B) against an order granting relief to six students who were found cheating in an online exam [Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare and Ors]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj upheld the order of the single-judge which directed IIM-B to reconsider the punishment of expelling the students on the ground that it was "shockingly disproportionate.""In the present case, the management has taken the view that the penalty of expulsion shall be awarded to these students. No reasons have been assigned as to why such severe view is being taken by the management in respect of the petitioners, more particularly when with respect to certain other students who are similarly situated, the management has taken a lenient view treating them to be first-time offenders and has awarded zero marks as also deprived them of receiving any award or medal etc," the Court said. .According to IIM-B, the students had formed a WhatsApp group to assist each other in answering questions during the online exam, while being fully aware that it was not permitted. The formation of the group and its use for cheating was an organised, systematic and a concentrated effort to bypass the rules and systems placed by the institution to prevent cheating, the Institute contended.When the students were issued a show-cause notice, they denied their involvement and attempted to erase the evidence. Eventually, some of them accepted their guilt and the Institute expelled them. .The students then filed a petition before the High Court challenging their expulsion. Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed their petition and directed the Institute to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The petition was allowed on the grounds that the Programme Manual of IIM Bangalore provides for first-time offenders to be given zero marks in that academic test. However, the students were expelled even though they had been found using unfair means for the first time. Further, two other students who had committed the same offence were given zero marks instead of being expelled. The discrimination in awarding the quantum of punishment is violative of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, the High Court had said. .The single-judge had observed that the action against the students is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by them and that if they are expelled from the Institute, they would have to carry the stigma throughout their life. .During the hearing of the appeal, Advocate Pradeep Nayak appearing for IIM-B argued that while the manual of the Institute states that zero marks shall be the penalty to first-time offenders who adopt unfair means in tests or quizzes, it also allows the Department to use its discretion to impose a more severe punishment.Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that in matters relating to education and academic standards, courts should not impose their views on the educational institution and reduce the quantum of punishment awarded to the offenders, he submitted. With regard to the discrimination in awarding quantum of punishment, he stated that the two students who had been awarded zero marks instead of expulsion had indeed joined the WhatsApp group, but they had not participated in it. The Institute had determined that they were not using the group during the online examination, unlike the other students who were on it actively to cheat. .The Court did not accept the contentions of the Institute, noting that the management has not assigned any reason for the severe penalty of expulsion given to these students, especially when the other students who were involved in the offence were shown leniency and permitted to continue in the Institute. The Court acknowledged that the manual does provide for severe penalty including expulsion even for first-time offenders, however, "it does not mean that every time the stringent punishment of expulsion should be resorted to and lenient view cannot be taken, more so when the stringent punishment is an exception to the punishment provided for first-time offenders being awardal of “zero marks".”.The Bench added that the students are in an apex management institute with their careers at stake, and that if they are ever involved again in cheating or unfair means, the Institute would be free to take appropriate action against them. It was made clear that this view of the Court is not to be treated as a precedent for similar cases in the future. .Advocate Vivek N represented the respondent students, and Additional Solicitor General Shanti Bhushan represented the Union of India. .[Read Orders]