Further, the top court bench has also requested the university to consider his representation with "utmost sympathy" and an endeavour to save the young professional's career.
While considering the plea by the father, the Apex Court observed that the son's nine-year professional exile was "a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours", and also noted that any further blockage of his career would be "too harsh and disproportionate".
"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..." ordered the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Also Read: Rs 1 crore fine, Upto 10 years Jail for offenders! Centre notifies law to curb exam malpractices amid NEET row
The matter goes back to February 2017, when at Chennai-based Sri Ramachandra Medical College, the petitioner's son was found wearing a digital wristwatch during an examination. Under the University's strict "unfair means" policy, the student's exam was cancelled. Despite clearing the papers later, the shadow of the incident continued to follow the student. This resulted in the family getting engaged in a relentless legal crusade, losing in the High Court and the Supreme Court, dismissing their Review and Curative petitions.
As per the latest media report by Verdictum, the student's father appeared in person, alleging a conspiracy involving "polluted counsels" and "fabricated documents". He also argued that the Bar Council of India failed to investigate his claims of fraud by legal representatives who allegedly withdrew the petitions without consent.
After considering the matter, the Court observed,
"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. ***, 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."
While refusing to reopen the merits of the original 2017 disqualification or the dismissed curative petition, the Court 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.
The Court did not entertain further litigation against legal professionals or the university and directed the petitioners to offer an unconditional apology to the institution. Also, the Court requested the University to act with "utmost sympathy" to expunge the adverse remarks, prioritising the future of young professionals over the technicalities of past misconduct.
"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," ordered the Court.
With this observation, the Court disposed of the matter.
Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Mid-Process Sports Quota Expansion for MBBS/BDS Admissions in Punjab
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.