- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 463 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: ARTHI B, D/O BABU.R , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, SADHGURU SAI LADIES PG NO.4, 1ST MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO RANGANATHA STUDY CENTRE, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 021 ALSO RESIDING AT: NO.23, CHETTIYAR STREET, ARIYALUR, SANKARPURAM DISTRICT - 605 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAMAN VANKDARI M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SUTAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR HUBALLI 580 025. 2. DR. B.R AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, R/A: #2, 5TH MAIN ROAD, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT SETTING ASIDE/QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION OF THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY DTD 27.12.2024 VIDE KSLU/MPC/EXAM/JUNE-2024/1826 AS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORADERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking to quash the notification/order issued by Karnataka State Law University (hereinafter referred to as "KSLU" for short) dated 27.12.2024 at Annexure-A and further direction to University to reimburse Rs.500/- collected as a fine from the petitioner as a penalty for the offence committed in the 4th semester examination which was scheduled in the month of August-September 2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner had appeared for the examination for the subject "Human Rights Law and Practice", the allegation was made against the petitioner of indulging in malpractice, respondent No.1-University constituted a Malpractice Consideration Committee (hereinafter referred to as "MPCC" for short) and the petitioner was summoned to appear. The petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 appeared in the enquiry proceedings, she accepted that she knows the allegation leveled against her and further she accepted that she has "written back side of Hall Ticket and copied from it". 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 along with memo produced the Photostat copy of the hall ticket and report of the squad members in connection with the petitioner wherein at Sl.No.11 it is stated that “copied from written hall ticket", the proceedings of the MPCC held on 11.12.2024 and the enquiry proceedings and the recommendation of the MPCC which reads as under: "Candidate appeared before the committee. Allegation was brought to the notice of candidate and candidate accepted that she knows allegations leveled against her. She accepted that she had Written Back side of Hall Ticket and copied from it." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The Registrar (Evaluation) before whom the MPCC recommendation was placed, passed the following order: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 "This is to inform you that in your Case the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee in its meeting has taken the decision to impose the punishment as per Examination Ordinance- 2014. "Punishment may be imposed as per clause C (5) of Ordinance Governing malpractice by candidates i,e. The Candidate shall not be allowed to take next two available examination besides forfeiting her performance in the examination in which she committed malpractice by imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/-" 6. The perusal of the material produced by the respondent No.1-University indicates that the petitioner has admitted allegations which were leveled against her and about writing on the back side of the hall ticket and the same being copied by her. Though the petitioner in the grounds made at paragraph No.10 states that the petitioner had written certain section of "American Convention on Human rights" on the hall ticket and the question asked in the question paper issued by respondent No.1-University is that "State the important provisions - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 provided under the European Convention on Human Rights?" under unit-3 of the question paper evincing the facts that the answer in the manuscript does not correspond to the answer in the answer booklet issued by respondent No.1. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Fact remains the petitioner in enquiry admitted about the committance of malpractice. The Apex Court in the case of Controller of Examinations and Ors Vs. G.S. Sunder and Ors1 (G.S. Sunder) has held at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 as under: “10. We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. One thing must be put beyond doubt, in matters of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference. After all, the authorities in charge of education whose duty it is to conduct examinations fairly and properly, know best how to deal with situations of this character. One cannot import fine principles of law and weigh the same in golden scales. In the present system of education, the system of examinations is the best 1 JT 1992(4) SC 204. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 suited to assess the progress of the student so long as they are fairly conducted. Interference by court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. We feel that: “The hour has come when we must clear The educational fields from poison and from fear; We must remould our standards — build them higher, And clear the air as though by cleansing fire, Weed out the damning traitors to education, Restore her to her ancient place of awe.” 11. When the matter is approached from the above point of view, we find, as rightly submitted by the learned Attorney General, it is a systematic case of fraud committed by the first respondent. It cannot be a sheer coincidence that in all the semesters, namely, Semesters III to VI the first respondent secured good marks and the other student K.R. Gandhi failed. There is nothing unbelievable in the first respondent admitting his mistake and giving a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1870 WP No. 463 of 2025 statement to this effect. We also find that there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. The first respondent knew the charges fully and he had admitted his guilt. That is why we are constrained to point out the technicalities of law should not be imported to further the cause of a student who had indulged in malpractice. Even if others are in complicity with the perpetration of fraud, that does not mean the first respondent is absolved of his guilt. Thus, we are unable to agree with the findings of the High Court which are hereby set aside.” 8. The report of MPCC and the imposition of punishment by respondent No.1 justified this Court is of a considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and the petition needs to be dismissed as devoid of merits with a warning to the petitioner not to indulge in such type of practices. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41