BCI Opposes Plea Challenging Its Decision to Withhold AIBE 2019 Results

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

After BCI decided to withhold AIBE 2019 results from specific centres, an advocate challenged its decision. The petition was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. BCI countered the plea stating enough grounds (i.e. Malpractice) to withhold exams.

Earlier, BCI announced its decision to withhold AIBE results from individual centres. It published a list of these centres. Further, it asked such candidates to reappear for the exam which gave AIBE 2019 from these centres.

Petitioner’s Arguments 

Following the issuance of this notification Advocate, Bilaal Ahmed Syed challenged it. Advocate M Soloman Raju represented the petitioner. He argued that BCI’s decision is illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. He claimed that the impugned decision lacks application of mind. Advocate Syed also appeared for AIBE 2019 in a centre at Visakhapatnam. His centre falls in the list of 9 centres whose results had been blocked.

Syed argued that it does not seem fair to ask all candidates of one centre to retake exams if there is a mismatch in codes. He informed the Court that all candidates from those nine centres were asked to retake exams. That is irrespective of the fact that there was no mismatch in all students’ exam codes. He countered BCI’s allegation of Malpractice at these centres. He stated that Malpractice could not take place since AIBE is an open book exam.

Respondent’s Arguments

BCI opposed the plea stating enough grounds. It stated that due to errors found and mismatch in exam codes, exams from some centres were affected. Thus results were blocked. Therefore, it asked candidates to retake the exam. It added that candidates do not have to pay fees for reappearing for the exam.

BCI had filed its reply in May this year. It stated that BCI conducts AIBE through an agency. A High-Powered Committee monitors the exam procedure. The Committee has its head a retired Supreme Court Judge. The agency which conducts exam raised specific issues related to the listed centres. Thus, the Monitoring Committee decided to withhold results from these centres. BCI added that conducting agency had recommended the Committee to seek help from cyber expert to determine if cheating and Malpractice occurred. Monitoring Committee had decided that Malpractice had occurred in these centres after it took note of a report on the aspect of cheating. Thereby, BCI requests the Court to dismiss the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -