Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal Filed By IIM-B Against Single Judge Order Setting Aside Expulsion Of 9 Students Caught For Exam Malpractice

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such, do not consider it to be a necessary case for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed."

It added,

"However, we make it clear that considering that the respondents are the students studying in the Apex Management Institute and their career is at stake, we feel it appropriate to observe that in case the respondents-students involve themselves again in any such activities such as involving themselves in cheating in the examination and adopting unfair means, then the appellants could be free to take appropriate action against them in accordance with the manual."

The institute had expelled nine students enrolled in PGP & PGP BA course on the grounds that despite knowing fully well that they cannot use internet in the examination had formed a 'WhatsApp' group in order to involve themselves in assisting each other in answering the questions and as such, had adopted unfair means to give their examination.

The students then approached the high court by filing a writ petition. The single judge bench by its order dated December 20, 2021 allowed the petition and remitted the matter back to the appellant-Institute with a direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment in terms of clause 4.2.1(c) of the Programme Manual 2021-2022 [PGP & PGP BA] and pass appropriate order.

Advocate Pradeep Nayak appearing for the Institute submitted that the Single Judge has grossly erred in relying on certain provisions of the Programme Manual 2021-2022 to come to the conclusion that a lenient view is required to be taken for the first-time offenders.

He submitted that under the manual dealing with the provisions relating to academic penalty for copying in examinations and quizzes clearly provides that the penalty could be more severe, including possible expulsion. The Institute contended that the Department has the discretion to take a lenient view or to impose severe penalty such as expulsion in case the students have been found to be involved in copying in the examination and quizzes.

The bench was however of the opinion that:

"the manual clearly provides that for the first-time offenders, zero marks shall be awarded in all examinations/test/quiz. For the repeat offenders, grade 'U' (unsatisfactory) and zero grade point will be awarded to a student in the course if the student has already been penalised for the lack of integrity in any course in the program. There is also a provision that students concerned even with a single instance of offence, will have to step down from all positions of responsibility (elected or selected). The student concerned will also not be eligible to receive any award from the institute such as the Director's Merit List, Director's Honour List of Gold Medal for academic excellence or all-round performance and the penalty could be more severe, including possible expulsion."

In the present case, it noted, the management had taken the view that the penalty of expulsion shall be awarded to these students. However, no reasons were assigned as to why such severe view is being taken, more particularly when with respect to certain other students who were similarly situated, the management had taken a lenient view treating them to be first- time offenders and had awarded zero marks as also deprived them of receiving any award or medal etc.

It went on to observe,

"Once a provision has been provided and a view on the basis of the said provisions has been taken by the Court, it cannot be faulted and it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court is wrong and no interference could be granted. The provisions under the manual in exceptional circumstances do provide for severe penalty including possible expulsion but it does not mean that every time the stringent punishment of expulsion should be resorted to and lenient view cannot be taken, more so when the stringent punishment is an exception to the punishment provided for first-time offenders being awardal of "zero marks."

The court clarified that, "The view taken by the writ Court in the case of the respondent-students shall not be treated to be a precedent for future cases of similar nature."

Case Title: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare

Case No: WA 91/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

Date of Order: February 4, 2022

Appearance: Advocate Pradeep Nayak a/w Advocate Anupama G Hebbar for Petitioner; Advocate Vivek N a/w Advocate Rahul S Reddy for R1, 7 &9; ASG Shanthi Bhushan For R10

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment