BCI Opposes Plea Challenging Its Decision to Withhold AIBE 2019 Results

Must Read

Supreme Court Closed Proceeding in Case of “in Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm Etc.”

Brief facts of the case Emails from the Petitioner resulted in an administrative decision. An Order of the Supreme Court...

Supreme Court To Hear Female Army Officers Plea on Non-Implementation of the Permanent Commission

Claiming that its order granting Permanent Commission to women in the army’s non-combat support units on par with the male counterparts was not implemented well, many Women Army officers have approached the Supreme Court.

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

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

Supreme Court Closed Proceeding in Case of “in Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm Etc.”

Brief facts of the case Emails from the Petitioner resulted in an administrative decision. An Order of the Supreme Court has drawn up the issue...

Supreme Court To Hear Female Army Officers Plea on Non-Implementation of the Permanent Commission

Claiming that its order granting Permanent Commission to women in the army’s non-combat support units on par with the male counterparts was not implemented well, many Women Army officers have approached the Supreme Court.

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -