Court's Response: A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil issued a notice to the college, ordering the preservation of CCTV footage from the exam hall and the principal's office. This measure ensures that evidence surrounding the incident is maintained.
Petitioner's Background: Gaurav Kakade, a meritorious fourth-year student, stated in his petition that he had consistently performed well throughout his law course. His request for additional sheets was based on his need to comprehensively answer questions, which he communicated to the principal before his 8th-semester exams.
Details of the Incident: The incident occurred during the Practical Training Paper (II) Alternate Dispute Resolution exam on June 11. According to the petition, the supervising professor failed to distribute the question papers on time and promised extra time to the students. When Kakade submitted his paper, the professor tore his answer sheet and mocked him for his request for extra supplements.
Aftermath and Actions: Kakade reported the incident to the principal, who initially assured him of action. However, the Chief Examination Officer and the principal later pressured him to sign an undertaking admitting to using unfair means during the exam, which he refused. Subsequently, the principal allowed him to write his answers on a new sheet but only permitted him to fill in his personal details.
Further Complaints: Kakade lodged complaints with various authorities, highlighting the potential impact of the incident on his academic career. The College's Students Grievance Redressal Committee, led by the principal, issued a notice and heard his grievances. However, their report allegedly displayed bias and inadequacy, prompting Kakade to seek the court's intervention to quash the report and ensure a fair opportunity to submit his answersheet.
Court Hearings: The case was brought before the Bombay High Court, where Justices Chandurkar and Patil issued notices to the respondents, including the college authorities, and set a returnable date for the notice. The court's order emphasized the interim relief to preserve CCTV footage, which is crucial for verifying the events as described by the petitioner.
Legal Representation: Gaurav Kakade was represented by Advocate Sanket Bora, alongside Ms. Vidhi Punmiya, Ms. Amiya Rajan Das, and Ms. Unnatti Thakkar from SPCM Legal. The Respondent State of Maharashtra was represented by Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Kavita N. Solunke.
Significance of the Case: This case highlights significant issues within academic institutions, particularly the handling of student grievances and the potential misuse of authority by faculty members. It underscores the need for transparent and fair processes to address student concerns and ensure that academic integrity is maintained without compromising the students' rights and futures.
Conclusion: The Bombay High Court's decision to issue notices and preserve evidence is a crucial step towards ensuring justice for Gaurav Kakade. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar incidents are handled in educational institutions, promoting a fair and just academic environment. The court's intervention aims to uphold the principles of fairness and due process, reinforcing the importance of accountability and transparency in academic administration.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.