logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 055 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi)
Case No : Writ Appeal No. 200026 Of 2026 (EDN-EX)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
Parties : Jaweriya Fatima Sagar Versus The Registrar (Evaluation), Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), Hubli & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: M. Sudarshan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R. Girish Kumar, Mahantesh Patil, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 14-01-2026
Head Note :-
Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 - Section 4 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC-K 254,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961

2. Catch Words:
- malpractice

3. Summary:
The appellant challenged an order that disqualified her from six examinations due to alleged malpractice in the Kanoonu Kannada paper. The Single Judge had allowed her to pay fees for the 3rd‑semester exam but had not ruled on her application to sit for the exam scheduled on 15‑01‑2026. The High Court examined the submissions of both parties, noting the seriousness of the malpractice allegation but emphasizing that the appellant should not be deprived of the upcoming exam before a full hearing. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ appeal and permitted the appellant to appear for the 3rd‑semester examinations, subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition and without any sympathy if misconduct is later proven. No opinion on the merits was expressed.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, praying to: a) quash or modify the interim order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.204100/2025; b) respondent Nos.1 And 2 may be directed to collect the Prescribed Examination Fees for the Ensuing Examination from 15.01.2026 and thereby permit the appellant-student to appear for the said 3rd Semester Examinations by issuing the required hall ticket; and c) respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be directed to collect the Prescribed Examination Fees for the ensuing examination from 15.01.2026 and permit the appellant student to appear for the said 2nd Semester "Kanoonu Kannada Examination by issuing the required hall ticket.)

Oral CAV Judgment

R. Nataraj, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging an interim order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.204100/2025.

2. The appellant had challenged an order passed by respondent No.1 disallowing her to take up the next six available examinations, besides forfeiting her performance in the examination in which she committed malpractice. When the writ petition was listed before the Court on 18.12.2025, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to pay the fees for the 3rd semester examination. It appears that the appellant thereafter filed application seeking permission of the Court to take up the examination that is scheduled from 15.01.2026. However, no order is passed on the said application and therefore the appellant is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the matter is pending before the learned Single Judge, even before the matter was taken up on merits, the appellant is condemned unheard as she is not permitted to take up the examination scheduled on 15.01.2026. He contends that if the appellant is not permitted to take up the examination, she is likely to lose a year. He therefore prays that pending disposal of the writ petition before the Single Judge, she may be permitted to take up the examination scheduled on 15.01.2026.

4. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the appellant is guilty of indulging in malpractice inasmuch as, she had conspired with the Principal of respondent No.2 and other staff in replacing the answer-sheets and the same was admitted by her before the Malpractice Committee, which resulted in an order passed by respondent No.1. He therefore submits that allowing such students to take up the examinations for the upcoming semesters would be emboldening her to indulge in similar activities and this would be a disincentive to those students who sincerely take up the examination. He therefore submits that no indulgence be granted to the appellant in this case.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

6. The sum and substance of the case is that appellant had taken up the Kanoonu Kannada examination of the 2nd semester and that the marks-card of the 2nd semester showed that she had absented from appearing in the Kanoonu Kannada exam. It appears that respondent No.1 thereafter found that appellant and other students had indulged in large scale malpractice in respect of Kanoonu Kannada and other subjects. It was thereafter found that the answer-booklets of Kanoonu Kannada paper was allegedly tampered by the appellant and the answer- sheets were replaced. The appellant appeared before the Malpractice Committee and stated that the handwriting found in the answer Book was not hers. The Malpractice Committee therefore was of the opinion that the appellant had indulged in an act of malpractice and therefore placed its report before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 in terms of the order impugned before the learned Single Judge, disqualified the appellant from taking up the six examinations and forfeited the result of the Kanoonu Kannada Examination of the 2nd semester. It is this order that is challenged before the learned Single Judge. It is no doubt true that the allegation against the appellant is grave and if it is substantiated, she does not deserve any sympathy. However, even before her case is taken up for consideration, it is not wise to jump to a conclusion and deprive her of taking the examination for the upcoming semesters. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the contentions urged by the appellant in the writ petition, since the appellant claims that the examinations for the 3rd semester is scheduled from 15.01.2026, we consider it appropriate to permit the appellant to take up the 3rd semester examinations, however subject to conditions. This would also meet the ends of justice. Consequently we pass the following order.

ORDER

          (i) The writ appeal is disposed of.

          (ii) The appellant is permitted to take up the 3rd semester examinations which are scheduled from 15.01.2026. However, it is made clear that this shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

          (iii) We also make it clear that no sympathy shall be shown to the appellant in case if it is found that the appellant is complicit in replacing the answer-booklets.

          (iv) We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the appellant and any observation made in the course of this order shall not be construed otherwise.
 
  CDJLawJournal