Whether University can take adverse action against law student without following principles of natural justice?

Petitioner who joined the Five Year B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

Course in the respondent – University from the Academic

Year 2017-18, is declared to have secured “F Grade” in

Child Rights Law examination held on 13.03.2020 since he

was not given any mark because of alleged plagiarism of

the Project Work in question; he was also not allowed to

take Special Repeat Examination of third trimester in the

third year, allegedly in breach of assurance of the

University.

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.

 What intrigues this Court is about the enormity

of unfair treatment which the petitioner was meted out at

the hands of a Law University, in a serious matter like this;

it is anguishing that the University did not afford an

opportunity of personal hearing despite his written

request vide mail of 02.03.2020 at Annexure-R5 to the

S.O.; 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; and,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 9395 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI HRUDAY. P B Vs  THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY,

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of admission of guilt by law student about plagiarism?

 The vehement contention of the University Counsel

that, petitioner in his mail dated 02.03.2020 has admitted

the ‘offence of plagiarism’, is difficult to countenance;

petitioner had sent a mail of the kind vide Annexure-R5, is

true, though unfairly enough, he has not whispered about

this in the Writ Petition; it is a representation ‘to

reconsider my case’ of plagiarism and not an admission;

true it is that, there are a few stray sentences such as ‘This

is my first plagiarism violation’; however, the same is

followed by other sentences which seek to explain why it is

not a case of plagiarism; he has specifically stated that

certain things needed to be mentioned as they are and,

that would not amount to plagiarism; even in his mail

dated 28.2.2020 at Annexure-R1 to the S.O., he has

written ‘This is my first violation’; but this too is followed

by a denial in the very same paragraph.

f) It has been a long settled position of law that a

stray sentence giving the impression of admission of the

guilt shall not be interpreted in isolation when the rest of

the matter in the representations suggests the contra; one

has to gather a holistic impression from reading the entire

text and not a few sporadic sentences appearing here &

there in a script, whilst considering if what is stated

amounts to admission. An acclaimed jurist of yester

decades Mr.Rupert Cross in his treatise ‘EVIDENCE’, (3rd

Edn. London- Butterworks 1967) at page 433 states: “An

admission being any statement … which is adverse to a

party’s case, the only conditions of admissibility, when the

statement emanates from the party himself concern the

capacity in which he is acting and the reception of the

entirety of the statement…”; 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 9395 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI HRUDAY. P B Vs  THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY,

DATED:  18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

Print Page