Rajasthan High Court rejects plea against 'malicious' question on Ayodhya verdict in LL.B. exam paper

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a first-year law student seeking the removal of an allegedly biased and inflammatory question concerning the Ayodhya dispute in an LL.B. examination paper. (Anuj Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan)

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that academic critique of a legal verdict, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with an attack on religion in the absence of deliberate and malicious intent.

“Challenging certain portion of a question paper solely on the ground that it hurts religious sentiments under Section 295A IPC is not legally sustainable/tenable, unless it is established that the content was included...with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings,” the Court said.

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Kumawat, is a first-year student at Mahavir Law College in Jaipur. He had challenged the content of a question from the August 12, 2024 examination in Legal Language, Legal Writing and General English conducted by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University.

Kumawat claimed that the passage in question made inappropriate remarks on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute. He alleged that it was biased, hurt religious sentiments and violated Article 25 of the Constitution and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Among other reliefs, he sought directions to the University to remove such content, take strict action against the examiner and issue a public apology.

However, the Court found no merit in the petition and stressed the need to protect academic freedom.

“The academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions should not be curtailed and compromised merely on the basis that subjective language is alleged to have hurt sentiments, unless there is a clear breach of law or the language used therein is contemptuous, offensive or defamatory."

Justice Dhand further observed that no other student who appeared for the examination had raised objections to the content.

The judgment goes on to underscore that the Constitution protects fair and reasoned criticism of court verdicts.

“An academic or personal opinion expressed by a student or teacher or scholar on a legal judgment, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with any religion attack,” the Court said, adding that such expression should be viewed as “a positive and constructive exercise in legal reasoning and critical analysis.”

The Court concluded that law must be governed by reasons and not by sentiments.

Finding the petition to be misconceived, the Court dismissed it along with all pending applications.

Read Judgment