Karnataka High Court order promoting failed NLSIU student to next academic year can't be applied to other students for now: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on an appeal filed by National Law School of India University against an order of Karnataka High Court in relation to the promotion of a fourth year student to the next academic year despite failing in a subject (National Law School of India University v. Hruday PB)..The Court also passed an interim order directing that the High Court order will be applicable only to the respondent student and not others. "Only the respondent ( Hruday) be granted admission for the next academic year," the Court said. .The NLSIU had denied the respondent student, a son of a sitting High Court judge, admission to the next academic year on account of failing in a subject.Single-judge Justice Krishna S Dixit of Karnataka High Court had, however, set aside the decision of NLSIU in November 2020. The university moved the Supreme Court stating that the Karnataka High Court judgment should not be treated as a precedent. "We seek for an interim direction to not consider the same as a precedent. Other students have been detained on same ground," Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya told the Court on behalf of NLSIU. .The Court conceded the prayer while issuing notice. The respondent, 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, he had approached High Court..University is dealing with our children and not others’ chattel: Karnataka High Court grants relief to NLSIU student and sitting judge's son.After hearing the parties, the High Court 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 High 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 required under the aforementioned examination regulations..In fact, the respondent 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 High Court had noted.It had, therefore, quashed the decision of NLSIU.