A candidate for India’s toughest engineering entrance exam, the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and the National Institute of Technology (NIT), has challenged the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in the Delhi high court to force it to disclose the exam’s answer key after results.
The JEE is a three stage entrance exam for gaining admission to India’s highest ranked IIT and NIT engineering universities. It consists of a prelim, mains, and advanced testing stage.
Kartik Narendra Jain, formerly a Somerville Greater Noida school student, cleared the JEE’s preliminary examination in his first attempt this year but could not make it past the 25 April main exam. Jain has challenged the CBSE to disclose the key on the basis of which his paper was evaluated, through PnA Law Offices co-founding partners advocates Rashi Bansal and Aritra Das.
In an emailed statement Bansal wrote: “The writ […] questions the policy of non-disclosure of ‘key answers’ followed by the CBSE, which forms the basis of evaluating the answers given by students. The Petition also alleges certain questions in the physics and mathematics section as being (a) vague, subjective and capable of having more than one correct answer(s), & (b) with no correct choice for a student to pick while answering a multiple choice objective type question.”
Nearly 12.5 lakh students attempted the mains, and the top 1.5 lakh according to the 7 May result are now eligible to appear in the advanced exam, Bansal told Legally India.
Bansal said that Jain had missed the advanced exam cut-off by 10 marks, which he should have scored in the physics paper according to JEE coaching centre FIIT JEE’s version of the answer key.
“The system of conducting competitive examinations should be transparent and CBSE should upload the key answers while disclosing the results,” she said adding,”once the CBSE discloses the ‘key answers’ the court will examine their correctness by a panel of independent professors from a central university. In case the court opines that the ‘key answers’ are incorrect, we will press for orders directing the CBSE to conduct a re-examination […].”
Jain’s writ WPC 3087/2013 was today listed in the Delhi high court. It will be heard on 22 May. The advanced exam is scheduled for 2 June 2013.
Several other students have alleged a discrepancy of 25 to 30 marks between their expected result and their actual mains result, reported the Hindustan Times on Saturday.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
"In an emailed statement Bansal wrote:"
Now Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules states that "An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, ... interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments... in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned."
This is a blatant violation and Kian and LI are abetting this! It may be an unfair rule, but it is a rule applicable to all lawyers. Until the rule is changed or struck down, such an act of Bansal writing to LI about the case is a flagrant violation of Rule 36 and is misconduct.
I'm a facing a discrepancy of 20-25 marks too.
All my complaints and requests to the CBSE have fallen on Deaf ears.
It's time to take action.
If this violates Rule 36, so does every single press release sent by law firms.
This case was communicated to us on the basis of "personal relations", if you will, and further to our requesting more information by us on this interesting case.
At least have enough class to be able to distinguish what is "trolling" from a genuine legal point. Just because 100 people commit misconduct doesnt make that misconduct alright. And oh yes, just because you think it is alright, doesnt make the Bar Council of India Rules worth nothing.
Now here is a genuine trolling attempt - perhaps you should get an Indian legal degree and understand "Indian professional ethics laws" before accusing your readers of trolling!
I may not have an Indian law degree, but allow me to take a natural reading of the rule: "An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, ... interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments... in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned."
As I said, in this case, the 'emailed statement' we refer to can easily be argued to be warranted by "personal relations" (whatever that actually means - please feel free to interpret).
But for you to start making a song and dance about this one case in particular, whereas this kind of thing happens pretty much every day from firms big and small, sometimes with more or less "personal relations", is just a tad disingenuous, and therefore a bit trolly, yes.
If you want to discuss the bigger issue - I'm all ears... In fact, do read this column on the topic first, which might be interesting:
www.legallyindia.com/201208313077/Legal-opinions/mint-column-legal-ads-vs-legal-journalism
Best wishes,
Kian
Also, while there may be other stories that are similar, I chanced upon this one and hence commented on it because I thought that Bansal emailing you with the story (if he at all did so) was wrong. Just because I dont notice all articles on your website, I cant be faulted.
Quote:The 'clearly' bit, in particular, sounded a bit over the top, as did your 'LI is aiding and abetting' point.
"Personal relations" is interesting though. I think on a reasonable interpretation, personal interpretation should also include unsolicited emails from lawyers you know. I.e., if we tell a lawyer, please tell us next time there's an interesting case, and they email us, surely that should be fine, shouldn't it?
You could also argue that personal relations could go so far as to allow a reader to get in touch with us personally and say, look at what case I've done, would you be interested in covering it?
Arguably, however, you could draw the line at canned press releases that are sent to 20 different newspapers are not "personal relations" - then again, the big firms do exactly that and no one cares (least of all the BCI).
Again, there's some room for interpretation here, but not sure I personally find it a very important issue. Happy to hear your view or if there's any point in someone taking action, and how.
Best wishes,
Kian
To the merits - I do read other articles where you report on litigation cases - and I want to clarify that I dont even know these PnA chaps so no question of a personal vendetta. However, when I read "In an emailed statement Bansal wrote: " - that kind of jumped out of the piece. It seemed that he made a positive effort to reach out to you. While other law firms may very well do that, you normally cover the story as if thats something you came by as opposed to the law firm contacting you saying they did this litigation. Or at least thats what I notice when I read this website.
Now hypothetically speaking (lets leave Mr. Bansal aside) if a lawyer were actually to do that - ie reach out to LI or BB and say that I did so and so case, that is clearly violating Rule 36. While there are many silly aspects of Rule 36, I personally feel that reaching out to a news agency saying I did so and so case, somehow doesnt fit into the "professionalism" which this profession demands and to this extent Rule 36 is right. Just my personal feeling. Lawyers shouldnt be doing that. Also Kian, there are tons of Supreme Court and High Court judgments on this very point which you would do well to read up.
To sum up - in relation to a litigation (as opposed to a transaction) if a lawyer approaches you saying he did so and so case and encourage you to publish a story on that, that would be misconduct in my view. However, there can be exceptions. For e.g. if ToI reports the case, and the lawyer forwards the link to you saying here is a story covered by ToI and I did it - perhaps that can be fine - though I am not sure. The lines are thin and blurry.
I don't quite agree with your analysis though - if I personally know a lawyer as a journalist, and I pick up the phone and ask him, what's up, and he tells me, that's fine? But as soon as he knows me personally, picks up the phone and tells me, what's up, it's not? Will have to read some cases to see if any anologues - if anyone has any citations, please do share.
Also, for future reference, just because we write that something was an 'emailed statement', does not in any way specify who made an effort to reach out first, etc...
Rule 36 is a fact, and it is also a fact that all firms and advocates are violating the rule! It is not sad that the rule is being violated. It is sad that we have stupid rules. Also, FYI, "personal relations" mean something else and do not cover an email to a news agency, even if the lawyer is a brother / father of the editor. In the present case, neither!
Re your "personal relations" point - do you have any authority for your assertion that rule 36 actually means something else? I couldn't see the 'stupid' rule being workable in any other way than as I described it.
However, although I am and remain a fan, I found it quite unlike your character to lash out at a comment. It cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that Rule 36 was a troll, so it is in poor taste to rush to the defence of P&A and attack the comment. I didn't like it - so I said it. Peace.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first