Merely Signing In Place Denoted For Signature During Malpractice Proceedings Wouldn’t Comply With Ordinance Requirements Under Karnataka State Law University Act: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court quashed an Order by Karnataka State Law University disqualifying a first-year LLB student from appearing in examinations due to alleged malpractice.

The Karnataka High Court held that a candidate merely signing in the place denoted for the signature during the proceedings of the Malpractice Committee would not comply with the requirements of an ordinance under the Karnataka State Law University Act.
The Court quashed the impugned Order issued by Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) disqualifying a first-year LLB student (Petitioner) from appearing in examinations due to alleged malpractice. The Court directed that the Malpractice Committee conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the ordinance governing malpractice proceedings under the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009 (the Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held, “In the present case, the procedure which has been followed does not inspire any confidence and as held by the coordinate bench of this Court in the W.P.No.103725/2022, merely signing on a dotted line or in the place denoted for signature of the candidate, in the punishment order or in the proceedings of the Malpractice Committee, in my considered opinion, would not comply with the requirements of the ordinance.”
Advocate Gayatri SR represented the Petitioner, while Advocate KL Patil appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner is a student at the Sri Kengal Hanumanthaiah Law College who had appeared for the Legal Method examination. During the same, the Flying Squad entered the examination hall, confiscated his examination papers and hall ticket, and did not allow him to write the exam.
The Petitioner claimed that he had not engaged in any malpractice and alleged that he was forced to sign documents without being allowed to read their contents. He further contended that the Malpractice Committee summoned him, but did not conduct any proper inquiry, instead directing him to sign additional documents without explanation.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that several matters of such malpractices come up before the Court and “it is found in most of the cases that the University relies upon alleged confession on part of the students and in most of these cases, a preformatted proceedings detailing out the details of the student, a brief description of the enquiry proceedings as also the punishment imposed are all found on the same sheet of paper and these are alleged to be signed by the students of their own free will and volition.”
“This so called confession is not on a paper or not in the handwriting of the student, but is typed by the Malpractice Committee, on which, the student has signed or is asked to sign,” it remarked.
The Bench further remarked, “Today in the hyper competitive environment, which is in existence in all fields of education and more often than not it is only on the basis of marks, which are secured that future education could be pursued by a student. Since it is those marks which would be taken into consideration for applying and being entitled for a seat, these aspects have far reaching implications.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the Petition and held, “General Directions would have to be issued to the University to safeguard the sanctity of examination, so as to make available a level playing field for all students, the University would have to formulate necessary guidelines and or Standard operating procedure in that regards.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Rahul HM v. Registrar (Evaluation), Karnataka State Law University & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:1451)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Gayatri S.R. and Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath
Respondents: Advocate K.L. Patil