Madras University journalism department examination row: High Court ordered inquiry vindicates student
An inquiry ordered by the Madras High Court has revealed that an examination in 'History of Communication' paper was indeed conducted by the Department of Journalism and Communication in the University of Madras on May 11, 2024 as claimed by a student but, shockingly, refuted by the university administration.
Justice N. Mala had on April 1, 2025 appointed Senior Counsel A.K. Sriram to conduct the inquiry since the university had stoutly denied the conduct of any such examination on May 11, 2024 and opposed a writ petition filed by the student Amanda Miriam Fernandez R. to declare the results of that exam.
The copy of the inquiry report served on the petitioner's counsel V. Vasanthakumar as well as university counsel V. Sudha stated that the inquiry officer had sent e-mails and WhatsApp messages summoning all seven students, including the writ petitioner, who had supposedly written the May 11 examination for questioning.
However, only the petitioner and two other students responded to the e-mails and WhatsApp messages sent to them by the inquiry officer and appeared in person before him. All three students asserted that the examination was conducted on May 11, 2024 and even a WhatsApp group was created for this purpose.
Research scholar Sharmila initially feigned ignorance about the WhatsApp group, to the inquiry officer, but on being shown the screenshots, she admitted to have created the group on the instructions of the Head of the Department of Journalism and Communication (in-charge) T.R. Gopalakrishnan.
On his part, Mr. Gopalakrishnan told the inquiry officer that the examination conducted on May 11, 2024 was in the nature of a mock exam and that it was conducted since the seven students had attendance issues. He also conceded that the students were asked to pay exam fees.
Stating that the examination was subsequently not approved by the university and therefore, the students could not benefit out of it, the HoD (in-charge) said, he did all of it for the benefit of the students but unfortunately, the decision making authority in the university did not approve the exam.
Mr. Sriram also found that it was Associate Professor Beulah Rachel Rajarathnamani of the Department of Journalism who had sent a written communication to the university Registrar on December 16, 2024 claiming that no examination was conducted on May 11, 2024 for the seven students of the 2022-24 batch.
Ms. Rajarathnamani had also written a letter to the university counsel Ms. Sudha on March 26, 2025 stating that the seven students could not write the exam originally conducted on May 26, 2023 due to lack of attendance. Hence, they were asked to redo the course and sit for the examination on November 19, 2024.
Only six of the students redid the course and wrote the examination in November 2024. The writ petitioner alone did not redo the course. 'The statement of Ms. Fernandez that an exam was conducted on May 11, 2024 and the April 2024 question paper she has produced in the court is completely false,' Ms. Rajarathnamani said.
Further, during the inquiry, the Associate Professor told the Senior Counsel that as per the Choice Based Credit System Handbook, it was only she, in her capacity as course instructor, was entitled to conduct and evaluate the exam but she had not set any question paper in April 2024 or conducted the examination on May 11, 2024.
However, on being shown screenshots of the WhatsApp group conversations with respect to the conduct of the examination on May 11, 2024 and the request to pay exam fees, Mr. Rajarathinam said, she was not a part of the group and that she was not aware of the examination conducted on May 11, 2024.
After hearing all of them, Mr. Sriram concluded that that an examination was indeed conducted on May 11, 2024 for seven students and that the question paper dated April 2024 was also genuine since it had been furnished to the students on the instructions of Mr. Gopalakrishnan who was the HoD (in-charge).
Justice Mala took the inquiry report on file, recorded the court's appreciation for the Senior Counsel for having taken the pains to conduct the inquiry and adjourned the hearing on the writ petition to June 9 at the request of the university counsel who sought time to file an additional affidavit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Encroachers can't claim right on public land: Delhi high court
The Delhi high court has ruled that encroachers do not have the right to incessantly occupy public land until their rehabilitation claims are resolved as it is to the detriment of the public at large. Justice Dharmesh Sharma in a ruling delivered on Friday dismissed pleas filed by more than 200 residents of Bhoomiheen Camp in southeast Delhi's Govindpuri challenging the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) decision to demolish their huts and refusal to rehabilitate them as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (2015 policy) 'The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy that binds them. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land. Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects,' the judge said, in his ruling released later. He added, 'The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are not only flawed due to the misjoinder of multiple parties with multiple causes of action but also fail to meet the essential threshold provided by the 2015 policy for being considered eligible for relocation and rehabilitation. None of the petitioners has any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large.' The plea painted a picture that DDA's action of initiating steps for the demolition of JJ clusters and proceeding with physical eviction without affording due process or considering their documentary evidence was violative of their constitutional right to shelter. In their plea, they had also sought alternative accommodation in accordance with the 2015 policy. DDA had found the residents ineligible on various grounds including their failure to possess a separate ration card for upper floor jhuggi, residing on the second floor, and absence of their name in the Voter List Entry Prior to January 2015. In its order, the court provided relief to 26 residents whose appeals were allowed by the appellate authority but rejected by DDA. Justice Sharma also directed DDA to provide alternative dwelling to another resident whose appeal was allowed by the appellate authority but which DDA failed to provide within six weeks. The judgement comes days after the high court on May 26 and May 30 dismissed pleas filed by over 40 residents, whose names according to DDA were not in the survey list. On Wednesday, DDA had said that the demolition was carried out last month following the dismissal of writ pleas by the high court. The nearly three-decade-old slum cluster was home to migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, among others, the single-judge bench was told during the hearings. The inhabitants included women who worked as domestic help, labourers in factories and local shops, and others who had meagre sources of income.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC orders restoration ofpower at SP MP's house
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has directed to restore the electricity connection at the residence of Samajwadi Party MP of Sambhal Zia Ur Rehman Barq which was disconnected in Dec 2024. Passing above directions to Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, the court also stayed the final assessment order imposing on him electricity charges of Rs. 1.91 crores for a period of 4,138 days upon the allegation of unauthorised use of electricity. Hearing a writ petition filed by Zia Ur Rehman, a division bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain fixed July 2 for the next hearing of the case. Barq had moved the HC against the assessment order on the ground that the same was passed entirely without jurisdiction as it imposed an assessment for over 12 years, when Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act only allowed imposition of charges for a maximum of 12 months in cases where the period of unauthorized usage was non-determinable. It was also contended that the final assessment order also demanded payment of electricity duty and compounding charges, which the authority had no jurisdiction to impose. Apart from above, it was also argued that by breaching the statutory period of assessment, an arbitrary demand of Rs 1.91 crore had been raised and that the petitioner cannot be made to deposit 50% of such illegal demand to maintain an appeal. Fixing July, 2, 2025, for next hearing, the court in its order dated June 4 stayed the final assessment subject to the petitioner depositing Rs 6 lakh within two weeks. It also directed the restoration of the electricity connection of the petitioner, subject to the timely payment of future bills. As per the statement of executive engineer, UPPCL in Sambhal, two meters at Barq's residence were found showing zero readings for the last six months and the units consumed did not exceed 100 in any of the remaining months last year. However, during the inspection, it was allegedly found that electricity consumption in his house exceeded 16 kilowatts daily, despite the sanctioned connection being only 4 kilowatts.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Justice Kant: Indian judiciary shaped democracy's moral spine
NEW DELHI: Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping the democracy's moral spine by interpreting the Constitution's textual commands in a way that gave vibrancy and dynamism to the country's governance structure, said Justice Surya Kant, who will become the 53rd Chief Justice of India in Nov. Speaking to legal scholars and students in Seattle (US), he said in Kesavananda Bharti case, SC established the 'basic structure doctrine', which elucidated that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its fundamental identity. Justice Kant said, "When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy - they deepen it." While judiciary's proactive stance has often filled legislative or executive voids in advancing rights and justice, it has also, at times, drawn criticism for encroaching upon policy domains traditionally reserved for elected branches of govt, he said. "This tension invites a deeper inquiry into the legitimacy and limits of judicial intervention in a constitutional democracy," he added. He said principles such as the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Judicial Review were deemed unamendable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo This doctrine, unprecedented at the time, was rooted not in textual literalism, but in an ethical reading of democratic continuity, he said. He juxtaposed the Bharti judgment with the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, in which during emergency SC had acquiesced to the govt's draconian diktat "no right available to citizens", and said it was only following the Maneka Gandhi case, immediately after the end of Emergency, that the true expansion of rights happened through SC's interpretative exercises. "In this period, SC has reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and underscored that its foundational values, especially those relating to life and liberty, are inviolable and beyond compromise," Justice Kant said. Explaining judicial independence, he said it encompasses the ability to have intellectual and moral independence, that stretches beyond mere institutional autonomy. "The underlying purpose of the independence of the judiciary is that judges must be able to decide a dispute before them according to law, uninfluenced by any other factor," he said, addingit is ingrained in the system ," he said.
