NLSIU : Supreme Court Stays Karnataka High Court Direction To Promote Student

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) against an order of the Karnataka High Court which directed the promotion of a student to next academic year.

The Supreme Court also stayed the order of the High Court, which had set aside the decision of NLSIU to deny a law student, son of a sitting judge of Karnataka High Court, admission to the fourth year of BA LL.B (Hons).

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, who was appearing for the University, urged a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta to pass an order stating that the High Court order cannot be used as a precedent. Other students have also been detained on the same ground as this particular student, the senior counsel said.

On this, the bench stated that the Court would pass an interim order saying that only this particular law student would be granted admission for the next academic year.

At the previous hearing, Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari had expressed their inability to hear the matter and had recused from the same.

On 20 November 2020, the Karnataka High Court had set aside an order passed by the NLSIU denying a law student admission to the fourth year B.A LL.B (HONS), on account of him failing in a subject.

A Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the writ petition filed by Hruday P. B, son of sitting Karnataka High Court judge Justice PB Bajanthri, and directed the NLSIU to assess and award marks to the petitioner's Project Work in question. The order states that the Petitioner shall be allowed to keep the term by way of carryover/carry forward, disregarding the attendance shortage, if any.

The student was declared to have secured "F Grade" in Child Rights Law examination held on March 13, 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.

The Court referred to Clause 4 of Regulation III of the B.A LL.B (Hons.) Academic and Examinations Regulations of 2009 and said:

"There is absolutely no material on record to show that the subject teacher having found the evidence of plagiarism had referred the matter to the UGC Chairman in writing and had sent a written intimation to the student. The petitioner came to know of the alleged plagiarism only after enquiry with the Registry of the University when his exam result was not announced; this act of the University constitutes a grave error apparent on the face of the record."

It added:

"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."

(Case : National Law School of India University versus Hruday P.B and another).

(Report was subsequently updated with the order. The first report was based on the oral exchange in the court room).

Click here to read the Order