University is dealing with our children and not others’ chattel: Karnataka High Court grants relief to NLSIU student and sitting judge's son

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday set aside orders issued by National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore denying a law student admission to the next academic year on account of failing in a subject.

. NLSIU had awarded an 'F' grade to the student on the ground that he had plagiarized a project.

. While setting aside the orders, the Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit was of the view that an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner.

. The petitioner, the son of sitting Karnataka High Court judge Justice PB Bajanthri, was awarded an “F Grade” in the Child Rights Law examination held on March 13 because of alleged plagiarism in his project work.

. Further, he was not allowed to take the Special Repeat Examination of the third trimester for promotion to the fourth year. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petiitoner approached High Court.

. NLSIU filed its Statement of Objections on October 17, claiming that the petitioner himself had admitted the case of plagiarism via an email.

. After hearing the parties, the Court firstly referred to Clause 4 of Regulation III of the BA LL.B (Hons) Academic and Examinations Regulations of 2009, which prescribed the procedure for dealing with cases of plagiarism. The Court noted that the said regulations did not define plagiarism and therefore, opined that the term needs to be understood in common parlance.

. Though the Court accepted that plagiarism is a very serious matter, it observed that there was no material on record to show that the subject teacher found evidence of plagiarism. Further, the teacher did not refer the matter in writing to the Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), as is required under the aforementioned examination regulations.

. In fact, the petitioner came to know of the alleged plagiarism only when he enquired about the same with the Registry of the University, after his exam result was not announced, the Court noted. Taking a dim view of the University's conduct, the Bench stated in its order,

"...this act of the University constitutes a grave error apparent on the face of the record....The entire episode of so called ‘plagiarism’ is framed on the basis of a few notoriously cryptic mails exchanged between the Course Teacher and the Exam Department, detrimentally keeping the petitioner in darkness..."

. Referring to the email sent by the petitioner to the University, the Court noted that there were a few stray sentences such as ‘ This is my first plagiarism violation'. However, the Court observed that such stray sentences could not be deemed to be evidence of the student's admission of plagiarism.

. "....it is more so when one is dealing with the educational career of young minds like the petitioner herein; loose & lavish wording of the representations, need to be given a due discount; the respondent –University is not justified in seeking shelter under a leaking umbrella of a poor student."

. This apart, the Court criticised the "enormity of unfair treatment which the petitioner was meted out at the hands of a Law University". Justice Dixit also lamented the fact that the the University did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner despite his written request on March 2.

. "....in Biblical literature, even God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for consuming the proscribed fruit, in the Eden Garden; which heavens would have fallen down, had a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing been afforded, remains as a mystery rapped in enigma; after all, procedural fairness is a constitutional mandate when the answering respondent is an instrumentality of the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution; it is high time that this University of national repute be reminded that it is dealing with our children and not others’ chattel..." Karnataka High Court . Based on these observations, the Court quashed the orders passed by NLSIU. The order concludes,

"...a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-University to assess and award marks to the petitioner’s Project Work in question; petitioner shall be continued to keep the term by way of carry over/carry forward, disregarding the attendance shortage, if any."

. [Read order here]

University is dealing with our children and not others’ chattel: Karnataka High Court grants relief to NLSIU student and sitting judge's son

Rintu Mariam Biju

Related Stories