Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Wednesday, Delhi high court rejected a plea filed by Delhi University student who was caught cheating during examination. She pleaded for a relief against the annulment of her whole semester examination. While rejecting the plea, the Single bench of justice consisting Pratibha M. Singh said that "Copying and cheating in examinations is like the plague. It is a pandemic which can ruin society and the educational system of any country. If the same is left unchecked or if leniency is shown, the same can have a deleterious effect. For any country's progress, the integrity of the educational system has to be infallible,"
The petition was filed by Aarzoo Agarwal, a final year student of B.A. Honour’s Economics at Daulat Ram College of Delhi University as her examinations were cancelled by the University for the whole semester. In her plea, she said that she was carrying notes in her stational pounch for revision purpose but forgot to leave them out and unintentionally took them with her in the examination hall. After one hour of the commencement of examination, she realised that she was carrying notes with her so she voluntarily handed them over to the invigilator.
In its defence, the University said that the student did not disclose to the invigilator the fact that she was carrying notes with her. Further an independent expert of Aurobindo College matched the notes with her answer sheet and concluded that the notes were used to answer the questions. The invigilator also claimed that she was hiding the notes under her answer sheet and used them for cheating for about 15 minutes.
After talking to the petitioner, the counselling committee said that she must be proceeded as per ‘Part C’ of the instructions but she apologised for her actions. So the committee concluded that she must be proceeded with Part ‘B’. The court held that 'By these `Instructions' all candidates were made aware of the consequences of resorting to unfair means. In any event, resorting to unfair means in examinations is downright impermissible and ought not to be encouraged at any cost. The Petitioner was no exception. After appearing before the Counselling committee and after receiving their counselling, she apologised, leading to mposition of a lesser punishment by the University –i.e., instead of punishment under 'Part C', she was proceeded under 'Part B'.'
86540
103860
630
114
59824