I did not mean to say that there was no harm done to the student, rather no harm done to the integrity of the exam process for which the anti-UFM measures exist to begin with. It is also a better procedure even for the students compared to a scene where you're stopped from giving the exam altogether. I fully agree that for a student who is innocent, it may cause considerable trauma. It is also true that UFM is rampant at the universities now, so some measure is definitely needed. The key is to strike the right balance.

Only a person who hasn't experienced a "false positive" would say "no harm done". One of my friends is a blind person who graduated from NUJS a while ago. He got authorisation to use a laptop in his exams as a reasonable accommodation, but somehow, the wires got crossed and something about his laptop use (I think whether or not he was referring to permitted statutes in the exam) was flagged by the invigilators. I know this because he and I discussed how to respond to the show cause notice sent to him by the university. Eventually, they cleared him, but the mental trauma and the knock to his confidence cannot be overstated.

I am a blind person myself, and have had a similar thing happen to me in a slightly different context, and was also eventually cleared because of being able to show that administrative wire-crossing within the examination authorities' system was the problem (I had written the start and end-time of my exam on my answer sheet based on extra time I had taken based on what the exam regulations allowed me, and somehow that got flagged), not me.

Considering this, my only response to you is: please do not, without a strong basis, make generalised observations like this on things you might understand little to nothing about. You cannot imagine how badly wrong you have gotten this. Please educate yourself before making these kinds of observations. Thanks.

NUJS already has such a policy. It is noted in a form that an unfair means instance has been spotted, and the student is later issued a show cause notice, but they are allowed to write the exam at that point. Some instances of detection are false positives, in which case no harm done.

Because the current protocol at most NLUs is that if students are caught cheating, they are asked to leave the exam hall. So they basically fail the exam.

It took the tragic suicide of an SC student for IITB to think about making the system more humane and compassionate. Let NLUs do so too!

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/iit-bombay-exam-cheating-rules-revised-students-can-finish-papers-qrt-alert-3012117-2026-10-08