HAMID MAJID vs DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE And 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a student challenging a disciplinary action that barred him from appearing in certain examinations due to the alleged possession of an incriminating written note during an examination. The core legal question involved whether the finding of fact regarding the possession of the note and the procedural steps taken by the detecting authority warranted interference by the court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that concurrent findings of fact and circumstantial evidence justified the disciplinary action, and no substantial injustice had been done to the petitioner, notwithstanding minor procedural flaws. The court dismissed the petition while observing that systemic corruption in examinations could potentially attract constitutional jurisdiction under Article 184(3) in appropriate future proceedings, but the facts of the present case did not suffice for such an examination.
- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding examination malpractice in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a technical or procedural failure on the part of a detecting authority automatically vitiate a disciplinary action against a student?
- Can systemic corruption in educational examinations attract the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 184(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--This petition for leave to appeal by a student has called in question a disciplinary action, barring him from appearance in certain examinations on account of a written note allegedly having been found in his possession, when in the act of writing, answering the examination paper. The learned counsel advanced elaborate argument that the note was not found in the possession of the petitioner. There is finding of fact against him on this issue. Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence against him and the argument, accordingly, is repelled.
2. The learned counsel also contended that the authority concerned which made the detection, failed to take some procedural steps, even it, they were against the petitioner. In particular he argued that the petitioner should have been expelled from the examination hall forthwith. When told that in view of the prevailing miserable conditions regarding examinations and examination halls, it might not have been possible for him to do so, the learned counsel did not meet this observation but instead vehemently and with legitimate anguish related the real point which according to him goes to the root. He argued the further point that if the entire system of examination stands corrupted and the Government machinery has been rendered to the position of an ineffective spectator, it is unfair to punish some and ignore acts of those---who either bribe and brandish arms or beg for favour or in the alternative use force. He also highlighted several other maladies. We have also similar impression about what the learned counsel stated. But it is not possible in these proceedings to give any judicial verdict either regarding extent or intensity of the problem.
We, do realise that if good students arc suffering harm and bad students are making gains, this by itself might attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution but the facts or circumstances of this case are not enough to examine this point. If the learned counsel, so desires, he can make a separate application to the Registrar of this Court in that behalf.
3. With the foregoing observations, we are conscious that there might have been some technical and procedural failure on the part of the detecting authority. But in substance no injustice has been done to the petitioner. He has, according to the learned counsel, already taken the examination next after the termination of the impugned bar/punishment. He should not lose hope and the case in hand should not be treated as life long stigma. It should not affect him or any others including his father, who remained present in Court, so as to deprive the petitioner of all good initiatives with moral resolves, even if they involve some amount of remorse and tauba. The latter, Allah, may accept if he is sincere. Thus, he washes a large number of criminal acts. With these expectations, this petition is dismissed.