Father In Court Standing With Folded Hands To Save Son's Career: Supreme Court Urges University To Consider Apology Of Young Doctor Found Using Digital Watch In Exam

The Supreme Court, today, allowed a young doctor to tender an unconditional apology to the medical college after he was found wearing a digital watch in an exam, while simultaneously requesting the university to consider the representation with "utmost sympathy" and an endeavour to save the young professional’s career.

It was observed that the son’s nine-year professional exile was "a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours," noting that any further blockage of his career would be "too harsh and disproportionate."

The Bench of the Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "At the end of the day, there is a father standing in court with folded hands, trying to save the academic career of his son, in whose MBBS degree, it appears that the University has made some adverse remarks based upon the history of adopting unfair means. The sheer frustration caused due to the inability of his son to pursue higher studies, is seemingly prompting the first petitioner, seemingly has brought negativity and is instigating the first petitioner to file complaints here and there. While we do not find any merit in those complaints, within the scope of interference under Article 137 of the Constitution, and consequently, we see no ground to interfere with the imprinted order passed by the Bar Council of India..."

It was the case of the Petitioner that in February 2017, at Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai, the Petitioner’s son was found wearing a digital wristwatch during an exam. Under the university’s strict "unfair means" policy, his exam was cancelled. Despite later clearing the papers, the shadow of the incident followed him. The family engaged in a relentless legal crusade, losing in the High Court and seeing their Review and Curative petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In this latest round, the father appeared in person, alleging a conspiracy involving "polluted counsels" and "fabricated documents." He argued that the Bar Council of India failed to investigate his claims of fraud by legal representatives who allegedly withdrew petitions without consent.

"We are conscious of the fact that Ramchandra Medical College and Research Institute, Purur, Chennai, has not been called or heard at this stage. It is so only to avoid them to be burdened with litigation expenses, especially when we are not passing an order of irreversible adverse impact on the functioning of the college. So, all that we observe is that Petition No. 2, for that matter, even his father, Dr. M. Subramanian, Petition No. 1, to tender an unconditional apology to the university along with an application for expunsion of the adverse marks said to have been recorded in the marksheet of MBBS degree. We request the medical college to consider such a representation with utmost sympathy and with an endeavour to save the professional career of a young doctor. The amendments in favour of the petitioners, it shall be highly appreciated if a favourable order is passed at the earliest and preferably within one month from the date of submission of the representation.", The Court added.

While the Court refused to reopen the merits of the original 2017 disqualification or the dismissed curative petition, it pivoted toward a humanitarian solution. The Court observed that the sheer duration of the struggle—a nine-year block on a medical career—had become a punishment far exceeding the gravity of the original offence.

Rather than entertaining further litigation against legal professionals or the university, the Court directed the petitioners to offer an unconditional apology to the institution. The Court requested the university to act with "utmost sympathy" to expunge the adverse remarks, prioritizing the future of a young professional over the technicalities of past misconduct.

The Court ordered, "However, it seems to us that the first petitioner, as well as his son, have suffered enough on account of the misdemeanours committed by Petitioner No. 2 while he was appearing in the examination held on 23rd February 2017. The multiple rounds of unsuccessful litigation, coupled with the fact that Petition No. 2 has not been able to seek admission to higher specialised courses for almost nine years, is a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours attributed to him, his son, attributed to the second petitioner. If his professional career as a doctor is permanently blocked, which is bound to happen if there are adverse marks in his degree issued by the medical college, such a punishment will become too harsh and disproportionate to the proven misconduct."

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the matter.

Cause Title: Dr. M Subramanian and Anr. v. S. Thankasivan and Anr. [Diary No. 64972 of 2025]