VINCENT PANIKULANGARA Vs. GOPALA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 is moved by three advocates of this Court after obtaining the consent of the Advocate General under-S. 15 of the Act. The respondent: Sri. Eravankara Gopala Kurup is a member of the Syndicate of the University of Kerala and also the Convener of the Syndicate Standing Committee for Examinations, University of Kerala. Based on the news reports which had wide publicity the petitioners sought to rely also on the fact, a fact not averred in the petition, that the respondent Sri Kurup was the president of the Non-teaching Gazetted Officers' Association in the University, some members of which were said to be involved in the criminal cases registered as a result of police investigation consequent on the decision of this Court on a batch of petitions relating to admissions to Medical Colleges. We do not think it necessary to call upon the petitioners to file an affidavit as to this fact only because it was admitted at the hearing by the counsel for the respondent after ascertaining with the respondent that he was the President of the Association. Commenting on an interim order passed by this Court on 8-12-1981 the respondent Sri Kurup gave to the press a prepared statement which was reported on 10-12-1981 in the Malayalam daily the Malayala Manorama and the English daily, the Indian Express. Ext, P1 is the copy of the prepared statement issued by the respondent and Ext. P2 is the copy of the relevant page of the newspaper Malayala Manorama containing report of the above statement. According to the petitioners the statement Ext. PI was deliberately made, to wilfully scandalise and lower the authority of this Court and also to interfere with the pending proceedings before this Court. Before we come to that statement and the Memorandum of Charges based on that statement it may be necessary to state a few facts to furnish the background that may be necessary to properly appreciate whether the criticism by the respondent made in Ext. PI statement was called for and justified and further whether it was within his rights to do so.

(2.) AS in the previous years this year too there were a good number of petitions before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the admissions to the first year M, B. B. S. Course in the Medical Colleges in the State 1981-82. But there was a difference in that this year in addition to the challenges made on various grounds to the admissions there were also allegations in many petitions of the prevalence of widespread malpractice in the conduct of the examinations. This, it has now turned out, is the reflection of the general public opinion which viewed the conduct of the examinations with considerable suspicion. To this aspect this Court has adverted elaborately in the final judgment in the Original Petitions rendered on 23-12-1981 in O. P. No. 5756/81 and connected cases, particular reference has been made therein to a series of articles in the leading dailies of the State and particularly the Malayala Manorama, by eminent academicians including Vice-Chancellors who had been in office in the Kerala University and the Cochin University, a former Pro Vice-chancellor of the Calicut University and even the current Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University. Besides them many eminent men of the academic world had also commented very disparagingly of the prevalence of such malpractice. Despite this when the petitioners moved this Court seeking that this Court should go deeper into this matter to find out whether there was such malpractice this Court was reluctant to do so. But after hearing counsel for some of the petitioners particularly in the background of views expressed by many eminent men competent to speak on the subject and also the views expressed by the responsible press of this country this Court felt that, a prima facie case had been made out for the Court to justify looking into this question. At that stage the court passed an order in the Medical College admission cases on 18-11-1981 to make available for perusal by the Court, if necessary, the answer books of the candidates whose names appeared in the provisional select list. The Court directed to keep these in readiness in duly sealed covers in the hands of the respective counsel for the two Universities, Kerala and Calicut. The Court then called upon the counsel for the petitioners to choose some numbers at random from among that of those who had been selected in the provisional list so that instead of going through all the books the Court may consider only those answer books of those chosen by the petitioners. To these the Court also added some numbers at random thus making about 60 answer books. These were directed to be scrutinised by eminent academicians in each of the four subjects, physics. Chemistry, Botany and Zoology who had volunteered to assist the Court in this matter. The Court was not proposing to revalue the papers, but only ascertain whether on going through the papers the Court would be able to say that any malpractice had been committed, keeping an open mind on the issue. During the course of such examination it was disclosed to the Court that in the original answer books of two of the candidates out of the 40 and odd candidates of the Kerala University whose answer books were so scrutinised the marks obtained were such as would not entitle them to seek admission. In fact in the case of one candidate the total of marks for the four optional subjects was only 2. The Court, thereupon called on the Additional Advocate General to make available the mark lists produced by these candidates before the principal, Medical College, Trivandrum in support of the application for admission and these were obtained. The mark lists in respect of the two candidates who had obtained marks which would not qualify them for admission were found to be different from the marks noted in the answer books. Evidently this meant one of two things; either that the marks in the answer books were not reflected in the mark lists issued by the University or that there was no proper verification by the Selection Committee before preparing the select list. If there was no machinery for ascertaining the correctness of the marks with reference to the University records and admissions were based simply on the mark lists supplied by the candidates that again was bad enough though the default then would be that of the Selection Committee. The Court did not know what the situation was at that time. There were many suspicious circumstances other than these disclosures with regard to marks. The possibility of substitution of answer papers was a matter urged before the Court and that again was a matter which the Court wanted to be pursued as evident from the order dated 8-12-1981.

(3.) IN the order passed by this Court on' 8-12-1981 reference was made to these matters. No doubt the Court made reference to the charge of malpractice in the examination conducted by the University and the concern the Court had in regard to such charges.