Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2008

Director (Studies) & ors. .. Appellant (s)

-versus-

Vaibhav Singh Chauhan .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This  appeal  by special  leave  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned

judgment & final order dated 24.5.2007 of the Division Bench of the Delhi

High Court in Letter Patent Appeal No. 22 of 2007.  The learned Division

Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA by the following order:

“Heard.  For the reasons that will follow separately, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-”

1

2. Subsequently, the reasons were given by the learned Division Bench

which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed in this appeal.

3. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri

Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The fact-s of the case are that  respondent  Vaibhav Singh Chauhan

(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was admitted to Dr. Ambedekar

Institute  of  Hotel  Management,  Nutrition  &  Catering  Technology,

Chandigarh in the academic session 2002-03 to undergo a degree course in

Hospitality and Hotel Administration.  He cleared all the subjects in the first

and second year.  Thereafter he appeared in the third and final year of the

examination for the academic year 2004-05.  On 19.4.2005 while he was

writing his answer script in the subject of ‘Front Office Management’ a slip

was  found  in  his  possession  which  contained  material  relevant  to  the

examination.  The invigilation staff took the slip into their possession and a

fresh answer sheet was issued to the respondent.

5. A  malpractice  case  based  on  the  seizure  of  the  slip  was  initiated

against  the  respondent  by  the  Examination  Committee  of  the  appellant

2

Institute.  In his statement dated 19.4.2005 before the inquiry the respondent

admitted that the slip which was seized from his possession was in his own

handwriting.   Thus,  he  confessed  the  charge  against  him.   However,  he

pleaded that he was extremely sorry for the misdeed and would not repeat it

again.

6. By its order dated 7.7.2005 the Institute disqualified the respondent

for one academic session as per Rule 9.2 of the Examination Rule of the

Institute.   The  respondent  was  permitted  to  take  readmission  for  the

academic session 2006-07 in  the same class  and he had to appear in the

annual examination in 2007.

7. At this stage it may be relevant to quote some of the relevant rules,

being the Examination Rules of the National Council for Hotel management

and  Catering  Technology,  New  Delhi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

‘Examination Rules’).

8. Rule 8.1 of the said Rules defines ‘malpractice’ in an examination.

Sub-rule  (1)  of  the  said  Rule  8.1  defines  the  following  as  one  of  the

malpractices in the examination:

3

“Candidate who is found in possession of any notebook (s) or notes or chits or any other unauthorized material concerning  the  subject  pertaining  to  the  examination paper.”

The respondent in our opinion is clearly guilty of malpractice as defined in

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8.1 of the Examination Rules.

9. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

there was no evidence to show that the respondent had actually used the said

slip  of  paper  found  in  his  possession.   In  our  opinion,  this  is  wholly

irrelevant.   All  that  is  relevant  is  whether  the  slip  of paper found in the

possession of the examinee pertained to the examination paper in question.

If it does, then it is a malpractice.  In this particular case, the said slip of

paper was brought into the examination hall  and was found to  be in  the

possession of the examinee while the examination was going on.  Whether

the respondent actually used that slip or not is irrelevant.  This view finds

support from the decision of this Court in  C.B.S.E. vs.  Vineeta Mahajan

& another (1994) 1 SCC 6.  Moreover, this is also borne out by sub rule (1)

of the Examination Rules, quoted above.

4

10. In the present case there is no doubt that the slip of paper contained

material pertaining to the examination in question.  Hence, we cannot accept

the submission of Shri Lalit  Bhasin that the respondent was not guilty of

malpractice since he was not found to have used that piece of paper.

11. Rule 9.2 of the Examination Rules states as follows:

“A candidate found exchanging answer book or question paper with  solution  or  copying  or  having  in  his/her  possession  or accessible to him/her papers, books, notes or material relating to the subject of the question paper shall be disqualified for a minimum  period  of  one  academic  session  following  the examination in question and is  liable to be disqualified for a maximum period of three years following the examination in which  he/she  (deliberately)  adopted  unfair  means.  The candidate found to have thus indulged in unfair means shall be deemed to have failed in all subjects. After expiry of the period of disqualification such candidate shall have to reappear in the entire examination.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. It appears that in pursuance of Rule 9.2 the respondent has been given

the minimum punishment, since he has been disqualified for one academic

session allowing him to take re-admission for the session 2006-07.   Hence,

we  find  no  illegality  in  the  order  dated  7.7.2005,  which  is  annexed  as

Annexure P-3 to this appeal.

5

13. The respondent filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge

of the Delhi High Court in which an interim order was passed by the learned

Single Judge dated 31.3.2006, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-5

to this appeal.  

14. Since that interim order has relevance in this appeal we are quoting it

in its entirety as under :   

“ORDER 31.03.2006

CM. No. 3725/2006

The  charge  against  the  petitioner  is  that  he  was found  in  possession  of  a  chit/slip  of  paper  on  which some  notings  had  been  made.  The  records  that  are available at the present moment do not bear out whether this chit had actually been used in the examination. The petitioner immediately admitted to the possession of the slip  and  stated  that  it  would  not  happen  again.  His contrition is, therefore, spontaneous.  

The respondent has imposed on the petitioner the punishment under Rule 9.2 of Examination Rules, 2001 of  National  Council  for  Hotel  Management  Catering Technology  for  one  Academic  Session  following  the Examination in question. That provision also enables the imposition of a disqualification which may extend upto three  years.  Rule  10.6  preserves  to  the  authorities  the relaxation of even the minimum period of  punishment, viz., one year.  

6

In the writ petition a challenge has been laid to the legality of the Rules and Regulations. Leaned counsel for the respondent states that these Rules are applicable to 24 institutes that are run by the respondents.  

Before  any punishment  is  inflicted  on  a  person, even in circumstances where he admits to the possession of a slip of paper containing information that is relevant to  or  pertains  to  the  examination,  the authority should carefully exercise its mind as to whether circumstances call for a particular punishment. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that where students are involved,  the  commission  of  a  fault  should be  viewed with some flexibility.  

However,  if  too  much  laxity  is  shown  by  the authorities, especially in the case of cheating or using of unfair  means  in  the  examination,  it  would  inexorably lead to a decline in academic standards. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that in academic matters the Court should not exercise any discretion.

So far as the last submission is concerned there is a difference in jural  interference in academic standards and Judicial Review of the punishment, the Order should be a reasoned one. In the case in hand, all that is stated is that the petitioner is “disqualified for academic session as per Rule 9.2 of the Examination Rules of the National Council.”   The petitioner  was  informed that  he  would have to take readmission in the same class and will have to  appear  in  the  annual  examination  in  2007.  Learned counsel  for  the  respondents  admits  that  while representations had been received from the petitioner he is not in a position to state whether they were disposed of or not.  

The  Court  often  encounters  confessions  or apologies  that  are  calculated  to  get  out  of  a  delicate position.  In  the  present  case  a confession/admission/apology  has  been  spontaneous.

7

One full academic as well as professional year has been lost. It is not a case where by furnishing a confession the petitioner  claims  complete  exoneration.  When  the respondents’  Rules  themselves  contain  the  power  to relax the imposition of a minimum period of punishment, this  course  ought  to  have  been  transversed  and considered by the respondents.  If it  had been so done, and plausible  reasons had been given in  the impugned decision,  for declining to impose a punishment of two years  [as  it  actually  works  out  to  be],  this  Court  may have been loathe to interfere in the matter. Even on such a  serious  matter,  the  respondents  have  not  shown due concern and have not reduced to writing the reasons why a two year ban has been imposed. It is true that the Rules explain  that  a  punishment  of  one  year  discretion employed by academic authorities. In the first case, the Court  would  not  normally be equipped  with  necessary wherewithal  to  rule  on academic criteria  and therefore should  be  loathe  to  exercise  writ  powers.  So  far  as judicial  review  of  the  decision  taken  by  academic authorities  is  concerned  if  the  Court  can  interfere  in Government/administrative decisions, there is no reason why it cannot do so in the context of academic decisions also. The decision to impose a penalty, in any case, be described as an academic session. In both cases what is expected of the Court is to consider whether there was any arbitrariness in the action, or whether rules of natural justice have been violated or ignored as the case may be, or the decision is unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. It is within these parameters that the present case has to be considered.

It  cannot  possibly  be  contradicted  that  the impugned order is  of far-reaching consequences.  In all such cases it is essential for the authority concerned to give  a  complete  and  meaningful  opportunity  to  the delinquent to be heard. It has already been noted that the petitioner had confessed to possession of the chit almost spontaneously.  It  is  totally  left  to  speculation  as  to whether  he  was  using  the  slip  in  the  course  of  the

8

examination.  A  student  placed  in  such  a  predicament would, with alacrity, submit his confession depending on what  assurances  had  been  held  out  to  him  by  the authorities. However, where discretion is available to the authorities, to waive any punishment or impose light or heavy would be forfeiture of the examination in which the petitioner had appeared as well as the next following year. However, the Rules also, as has been seen above, repose discretion on the authority for reduction.

An interim prayer  has  been made for  permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination ‘Front Office Examination’  in  the  course  of  which  he  was  found  in possession of some objectionable material. At this stage of the proceedings I am of the view that the respondents have not applied the Rules in their letter and spirit and have  not  kept  in  mind  the  immediate acknowledgment/admission  of  the  guilt  being  in possession  of  objectionable  material.  It  is  certainly arguable  that  possession  of  objectionable  material,  per se, without a finding that that material was intended to be used in the examination, would not be punishable. If we care  to  think  back  to  our  student  days,  one  would invariably recollect preparation of such kind of slips for refreshing the mind immediately before an examination, with no further intent to use it  as unfair or illegitimate manner. These aspects of the case have been ignored.  

In  these  circumstances  the  respondents  are directed  to  permit  the  petitioner  to  appear  in  the forthcoming ‘Front Office Examination’. The appearance of the petitioner in this examination will not create any equities  in  his  favour.  The  results  shall  be  kept  in  a sealed cover and shall be only declared on orders of the Court. Leniency in matters, such as these, was shown by the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  Swatantar  Dixit  vs. Govind  Ram,  (2001)  10  SCC  761  by  reducing  the punishment  to  2-1/2  months,  which  was  the  period  of suspension already undergone.  

9

List  this  application  for  further  consideration  on 1.5.2005.

WP© NO.4505/2006

Counter  Affidavit  be  filed  within  two  weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter.  

Renotify on 1.5.2006.”

15. Before commenting on this interim order we would like to say that

this Court has repeatedly disapproved of passing of such interim orders in

educational  matters  vide  Regional  Officer,  C.B.S.E.  vs.  Sheena

Peethambaran & others (2003) 7 SCC 719 (para 6), C.B.S.E. & another

vs.  P.  Sunil  Kumar  &  others (1998)  5  SCC  377,  Guru  Nanak  Dev

University vs. Parminder Kumar Bansal & others (1993) 4 SCC 401 etc.

16. As noted in the above judgments of this Court, such interim orders

amount  to  misplaced  sympathy which  are  wholly  uncalled  for  and often

results in creating confusion and is destruction of academic discipline and

academic standards.                                

17. Coming  to  the  interim  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  dated

31.3.2006, it may be noted that in the very second sentence of the order the

10

learned Single Judge stated that the record did not  bear out whether the chit

had actually been used in the examination.  As already noted above, this

was a wholly irrelevant consideration.  Once it is found that the chit/piece of

paper contains material pertaining to the examination in question it amounts

to malpractice, whether the same was used by the examinee or not.   

18. The learned Single Judge in the interim order has then emphasized on

the  fact  that  the  respondent  had  apologized  and  had  confessed  to  the

possession of the chit. In our opinion this again is a misplaced sympathy.

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, and this is only

possible  if  malpractices  in  examinations  in  educational  institutions  are

curbed with an iron hand.

19. The learned Single Judge in the interim order then states –“if we care

to think back to our student days, one would invariably recollect preparation

of  such  kind  of  slips  for  refreshing  the  mind  immediately  before  an

examination,  with  no  further  intent  to  use  it  as  an  unfair  or  illegitimate

manner”.

11

20. Here again, we respectfully cannot approve of the above observation

of the learned Single Judge.   A judge is supposed to keep his personal view

in the background and not inject them in the judgments.  What was done in

his student days was surely irrelevant for deciding the case or even passing

an interim order. It is true that seeing a slip of paper before commencement

of  the  examination  is  not  a  malpractice,  but  in  the  present  case  we  are

concerned  with  its  use  during the  examination  and  not  before the

examination.  Hence we fail to see how the above observation of the learned

Single Judge could be justified.

21. The learned Single Judge has then directed the Institution to allow the

respondent to reappear in the forthcoming ‘Front Office Examination’.  In

our opinion, this again was wholly illegal.  As noted in Rule 9.2 (quoted

above), even if a candidate has used unfair means only in one paper, he will

be  deemed  to  have  failed  in  all  the  papers.   In  the  present  case,  the

respondent  no doubt was found with a slip of paper in the ‘Front  Office

Examination’ which was only one of the papers.  However, in view of Rule

9.2 he will have to reappear in the entire examination i.e. in all the papers,

and not merely in the Front Office Examination.  

12

22. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single

Judge was wholly unjustified in passing the aforesaid interim order dated

31.3.2006.

23. Thereafter in the final judgment dated 30.10.2006, the learned Single

Judge directed the result of the respondent to be declared forthwith for the

subject  ‘Front  Office’  for  which  the  respondent  appeared  in  April  2006

pursuant to the interim order dated 31.3.2006, and also to declare the result

of the respondent  in other subjects  in which he appeared in 2005.   The

learned Single  Judge  was of  the  view that  the punishment  imposed  was

disproportionate to the offence, particularly since the respondent had shown

remorse and sought forgiveness.   

24. We are afraid we cannot agree with the view taken by the learned

Single  Judge.   As  already  stated  above,  we  have  to  be  very  strict  in

maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline

and academic rigour if our country is to progress.  Sympathy for students

using unfair means is wholly out of place.

13

25. Moreover,  the  respondent/examinee  has  been  given  the  minimum

punishment  under  the  rules  and  no  lesser  punishment  could  have  been

imposed, except in exceptional circumstances.  It is true that when a person

confesses his guilt it is often treated as a mitigating circumstance and calls

for lesser punishment if that is permissible.  However, this is not an absolute

rule and will not apply in all kinds of cases.  In particular, as stated above,

in academic matters there should be no leniency at all if our country is to

progress.   Apart  from that,  the respondent  had  been given the  minimum

punishment  under  Rule  9.2  and  we  fail  to  understand  how  a  lesser

punishment could have given to him, except by exercising discretion in a

particular case. This is not that kind of exceptional case, and no sympathy

was called for.

25. The  learned  Single  Judge  in  his  judgment  dated  30.10.2006  has

directed  that  the  writ  petitioner’s  result  in  the  subject  ‘Front  Office’  in

which he appeared in April 2006 and other papers in which he appeared in

2005 be declared forthwith.  In our opinion, this was an illegal direction,

because as stated in Rule 9.1, once a candidate has been found using unfair

means even in one subject/paper, he will be deemed to have failed in all the

14

subjects/papers and he has to rewrite the entire examination, and  not merely

for the single paper in which he is found to have used unfair means.

26. An appeal was filed before the learned Division Bench of the Delhi

High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment which we

have carefully perused.  We regret our inability to agree with the Division

Bench.

27. The  learned  Division  Bench  has  repeated  the  view of  the  learned

Single Judge that the punishment given was disproportionate to the offence

committed.  We entirely disagree with that view.  As already stated above,

the minimum punishment  was imposed on the respondent  and we fail  to

understand what other punishment could have been given to him even when

he has  confessed  his  guilt.    In  our  opinion,  this  was  not  a  fit  case  for

exercising discretion by waiving or reducing the minimum punishment.   

28. Moreover, the learned Division Bench seems to have made the same

mistake made by the learned Single Judge in directing that the respondent’s

result of the subject ‘Front Office’ examination held in 2006 along with the

result  in other papers  written by him in 2005 be declared forthwith.  As

15

already stated above, this direction is against Rule 9.2 of the Examination

Rules.  

29. Shri Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that

the examination rules were invalid.  We have carefully perused the rules and

find no invalidity in the same.  There is no violation of Article 14 or any

other provision of the Constitution or any other statute.

30. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that both the judgments of

the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Division Bench cannot be

sustained and have to be set aside.  We order accordingly.  Resultantly, the

appeal  stands  allowed.   The impugned  judgment  of  the  learned Division

Bench  as  well  as  the  Single  Judge  are  set  aside  and the  writ  petition  is

dismissed.   

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions

of  this  Court  which  has  repeatedly held  that  the  High  Court  should  not

ordinarily  interfere  with  the  orders  passed  in  educational  matters  by

domestic tribunals  set up by educational  institutions vide  Board of High

16

School  &  Intermediate  Education, U.P.  Allahabad  &  another  vs.

Bagleshwar Prasad & another AIR 1966 SC  875 (vide para 12),  Dr. J.P.

Kulshrestha  & others vs.  Chancellor,  Allahabad University  & others

AIR  1980  SC  2141  (vide  para  17),  Rajendra  Prasad  Mathur vs.

Karnataka University & another AIR 1986 SC 1448 (vide para 7).  We

wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions, and further state that

the High Courts  should not  ordinarily interfere  with  the functioning and

order of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some

statutory rule  or legal  principle.   Also,  there must  be strict  purity in  the

examinations  of  educational  institutions  and  no  sympathy  or  leniency

should  be  shown  to  candidates  who  resort  to  unfair  means  in  the

examinations.

…………………………….J. (Altamas Kabir)

…………………………….J. (Markandey Katju)

New Delhi; 04 November, 2008

17