Chief Justice names law graduate who wanted to remain anonymous after plagiarism in exams

CNA

2 days ago

SINGAPORE: A law graduate who sought anonymity after being denied admission to the Bar for failing to disclose past plagiarism incidents has been named by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.
The Chief Justice on Thursday (Aug 7) chose to republish his grounds of decision and identify Ms Pulara Devminie Somachandra.
"I make this order because, in my judgment, the principle of open justice is the predominant and overriding interest in this case, and there are insufficient grounds for departing from it," he said in his judgment.
'The principle of open justice entails, as a general rule, that the identities of the parties are made known to the public and anonymisation orders are a derogation from this principle,' he added.
Ms Somachandra had plagiarised in the Part A Bar examinations in 2020 and on occasion in university, but had failed to disclose these offences when applying for admission to the Bar.
She was not admitted to the Bar and a five-year minimum exclusionary period was imposed.
She had requested her identity be kept anonymous in the original grounds of decision. The law graduate had produced a medical note from a private doctor stating that she had suicidal thoughts, and said a non-anonymised judgment posed an immediate risk to her health and safety.
Chief Justice Menon then released his grounds of decision with Ms Somachandra's identity temporarily withheld on an interim basis, pending a psychiatric report from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) argued that the grounds of decision should not continue to be anonymised.
Meanwhile, the Law Society proposed that Ms Somachandra undergo a period of consistent psychological and psychiatric treatment at IMH, as well as to create a risk management plan.
In the meantime, the anonymisation should remain in force until she reapplies for admission after the minimum exclusionary period.
Ms Somachandra argued that she should continue to be kept anonymous for several reasons. Among them, she said that the lifting of the anonymisation would mean her past conduct would "come back to haunt her, regardless of the progress she has made or may hope to make".
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Chief Justice Menon said the default rule that the identities of lawyers must be made public is of "great importance", as questions of public interest regarding the character of the lawyer are required for admission to the Bar.
These proceedings, which are open and public, also signal to the public that those who are admitted have been publicly assessed as "morally competent" to meet the high standards expected of members of the legal profession.
If the publication of an applicant's name is sought to be withheld, it would typically only be warranted if it is required to "avert an imminent and credible threat of real harm".
Calling it a high threshold, Chief Justice Menon said the harm must be grave and disproportionate when weighed against the interest of open justice.
'There is insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a substantial risk that Ms Somachandra's condition will likely deteriorate to such an extent that it would be a disproportionate consequence of lifting the anonymisation of the (grounds of decision),' he said.
The facts, considered with her stated willingness to undergo treatment, "fall short of establishing an imminent and credible risk of grave and disproportionate harm to Ms Somachandra if the anonymisation" was lifted, he added.
With regards to her argument that her past conduct would 'come back to haunt her', Chief Justice Menon said those who seek to be admitted to the Bar must put their character up for public scrutiny.
"Moreover, it is contrary to the notion of repentance and rehabilitation for Ms Somachandra to now seek to sweep her past misconduct under the rug," he said.
"While second chances ought to be given, the journey to repentance, rehabilitation and reintegration begins with the willingness to confront and to be honest and open about her past misconduct."
He emphasised that information about a legal practitioner's character is 'even more important' given the ethical standards to which legal practitioners are held.
The Chief Justice also said he was unpersuaded by the Law Society's proposal that the court should revisit the issue of anonymisation only if and when Ms Somachandra decides to reapply for admission to the Bar at the end of her minimum exclusionary period.
It is 'quite arguable' that matters may be made worse since the fear of having her name published would hang over her for the next few years, he said.
The court should also "not have to police" whether she has made progress in her recovery over the next five years or so, he added.
"There must be some personal responsibility and willingness on Ms Somachandra's part to take steps towards her rehabilitation," said Chief Justice Menon.
PLAGIARISM
Ms Somachandra graduated from a university in the United Kingdom in 2019.
To practise law in Singapore, law graduates must be admitted to the Bar by passing a set of exams known as Part B. Law graduates from approved overseas universities must also take another conversion examination known as Part A.
After failing two papers in the Part A exam in 2020, she resat the exam, but some of her answer scripts were found to be similar to another candidate's, Ms Tan, with matching texts.
The SILE concluded that she had collaborated with Ms Tan.
Ms Somachandra eventually passed the Part A exam in 2022 and the Part B exam the following year. She applied to be admitted to the Bar but failed to disclose the incident in 2020 with the Part A exam.
In 2024, the AGC contacted her university, and after Ms Somachandra consented for the information to be released, it stated that "moderate plagiarism" had occurred.