Issue 3- Whether the imposed penalty infringes any legal right of the petitioner?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the penalty imposed on the petitioner does
not violate his legal rights. A legal right is an interest accepted and protected by law. 
The fundamental right to education is not absolute. The right is subject to certain reasonable
restrictions. And in the present case, the usage of unfair means to pass the examination makes the
withholding of the results a reasonable and just restriction on Mohit’s right to education. 

The Apex Court in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition and Catering
Technology vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59 has stressed on the need to
maintain purity and strict discipline in the conduct of examinations, deeming it to be necessary
for the overall progress of the nation.

In Director (Studies) v Vaibhav Singh Chauhan (2009) 1 SCC 59 the Supreme Court while
dealing with malpractice in examinations, observes: “We are of the firm opinion that in academic
matters there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be severely punished. If our
country is to progress we must maintain high educational standards, which is only possible if
malpractices in examinations in educational institutions are curbed with an iron hand. …”

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the court that punishment was imposed on the petitioner
by the competent authority, after a thorough investigation into the issue. The effect of the
punishment was that the petitioner’s exam results were withheld and he was further debarred
from giving any other examination. 

In the case of Yogesh Parihar v/s Delhi Technical University, the facts of the case were similar
to the current case wherein the student’s mobile phone was caught sharing answers before the
examination, and his plea of alibi that his roommate was using his mobile phone was considered
to be illogical and insensible. The court strictly held “ that the University has been lenient in
imposing "Category IV" punishment rather than rusticating the cheaters.”
It is humbly submitted that in the current case, the university rulebook allowed the authorities to
take administrative action with respect to such cases. And the receipt of the concealed envelope
with the question paper in the petitioner’s handwriting, dated before the examination is clearly a
conscious and deliberate violation of the rules of the examination. Therefore the penalty imposed
on the petitioner by the Examination Committee is justified and is in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the University and no legal rights have been violated. 

This clearly establishes the strong disposition of the courts about not taking malpractice in
examinations lightly and punishing the same with strict punishments to curb the menace. It is
further reiterated in another landmark judgement of the honorable supreme court below.

In the landmark supreme court case of Controller Of Examinations And ... vs G.S. Sunder
And Anr , the apex court held, “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 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.” The
Honourable court also stressed that, “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”

To sum up, it can be said that when a person signs up to be a student at a University, they agree
to adhere to the rules and regulations of the University and also accept the University
Authorities’ power to punish for any malpractice or violation of the rules. No legal rights of the
student are violated in this regard. This was also reiterated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
the case of Radhey Lal Maheshwari v. Dr. Dwarka Prasad Mishra, Misc. Petn. No. 117 of
1960, D/- 30-11-1960 (MP). The court held that “in cases of disciplinary -action against
students there is no question of infringement of any fundamental right; that when a student joins
a University he becomes a disciple and the relationship between the University authorities and
him becomes one of the teacher and the taught; and that in that relationship it becomes his duty
to learn, submit and obey the rules, regulations, and orders of the University for the maintenance
of discipline, for the conduct of examinations and for determining whether a candidate is
qualified or disqualified to pass an examination.”