- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10569-DB WA No. 158 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO.158 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ARTHI B. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O. BABU R. 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. …APPELLANT (BY SRI NAMAN VANKDARI M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10569-DB WA No. 158 of 2025 AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR SUTAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR HUBALLI - 580 025. 2. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL #2, 5TH MAIN ROAD SRIRAMPURAM BENGALURU - 560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G.M. SUMITHRA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.463/2025 (EDN-RES) DATED 16.01.2025, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10569-DB WA No. 158 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. M. Naman Vankdari for the appellant. 2. The challenge in this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition No.463 of 2025 of the appellant herein came to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 3. Before learned Single Judge, what the petitioner prayed was to set aside notification dated 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent-Karnataka State Law University, whereby penalty was imposed debarring the petitioner-candidate from appearing in the next two examinations besides forfeiting the performance in the examination and imposing a penalty of Rs.500/-. 3.1 The allegation against the petitioner was that while she appeared in the examination for the subject "Human Rights Law and Practice", she committed malpractice by copying from the hall ticket brought inside the examination hall which had the writing on the back side. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10569-DB WA No. 158 of 2025 4. Learned Single Judge, while negating the prayer to set aside the penalty, highlighted that the petitioner-candidate appeared before the Committee and admitted that she had written on the back side of the hall ticket and copied from it. In that view, penalty was imposed by the authority. 4.1 Learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and the said conspicuous aspect of admission on part of the petitioner about having copied from the hall ticket, reasoned in her judgment as under: "6. The perusal of the material produced by the respondent No.1-University indicates that the petitioner has admitted allegations which were levelled 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 sates 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 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." 4.2 Learned Single Judge further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Controller of Examinations and Others vs. G.S. Sunder and Others [JT 1992(4) SC 204] to highlight that the principles of law cannot be weighed in golden - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10569-DB WA No. 158 of 2025 scales when it comes to the cases of malpractices in the examination by the students. 5. The harping on the part of learned Advocate for the appellant about non-compliance of the procedure before the imposition of penalty was of no avail, in as much as once the appellant- candidate had admitted about using the Hall-ticket and the writing overleaf to copy in the examination paper, it will leave no room. All the contentions would stand stripped off their merits. The admission of the guilt and using unfair means in the examination would rule as an outweighing factor. 5.1 It is well settled that the technicalities cannot be imparted in the cases of dealing with malpractices in examinations by the students. The educational authorities in this regard cannot be compelled to weigh the legal technicalities on golden scale. The scope of judicial review becomes extremely relevant. It is to be reiterated that in the present case, the student candidate admitted at the very first instance to have copied from the writing she had on her Hall-ticket. This aspect was sufficient to proceed against her and to subject her to punishment for the misconduct in the examination. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10569-DB WA No. 158 of 2025 6. No case is made out to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed as meritless. In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11