10 July 2025 Legal Updates

STIGMA OF 'UNFAIR MEANS' ADVERSELY AFFECTS CANDIDATE'S CAREER, MUST BE SUPPLIED RELEVANT DOCS, CCTV FOOTAGE TO ENABLE DEFENCE: DELHI HC

(a) Case Title:

• Dr. Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS)

(b) Court:

• Delhi High Court

(c) Judge:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan

(d) Date of Decision:

• July 7, 2025

Background

Dr. Aastha Raj, an MBBS graduate from Lady Hardinge Medical College, was pursuing NBEMS Diploma in Radio Diagnosis. She appeared for the final theory examination on June 14-16, 2024, at Visakhapatnam centre. The examination was conducted under CCTV surveillance.

The Allegations

NBEMS alleged that during the June 14, 2024 examination, Dr. Raj was found with "chits" (small pieces of paper with notes) hidden under her answer booklet. When confronted by invigilators, she allegedly swallowed the chits. On June 15, 2024, she was accused of threatening behaviour toward examination officials.

Petitioner's Version

Dr. Raj claimed she faced harassment and inappropriate conduct from invigilators. She experienced technical issues with her computer on multiple days. She filed a complaint on June 25, 2024, but received no response. She categorically denied any cheating or unfair means.

NBEMS Action

1. Show Cause Notice:

• Issued on September 6, 2024

2. Penalty Imposed on October 29, 2024:

• Cancellation of candidature for June 2024 examination and Two-year debarment from all NBEMS examinations.

Legal Issues and Analysis

1. Principles of Natural Justice

The court identified serious violations of natural justice:

• Non-supply of documents: NBEMS failed to provide copies of relied-upon documents including CCTV footage, Written statements of exam functionaries, Appraiser's report and Petitioner's own written statement
• Lack of meaningful opportunity: Without these documents, the petitioner could not effectively defend herself

2. Evidence and Burden of Proof

• CCTV Footage as Best Evidence: Since the examination was under CCTV surveillance, the footage was the most reliable evidence
• Court's Examination: The judge personally viewed the CCTV footage twice and found no evidence of chit swallowing. The petitioner's seat was clearly visible (contrary to NBEMS claim of pillar obstruction) and the allegations were not supported by visual evidence

3. Perversity of Decision

• The court found the decision was based on "no evidence" - a ground for judicial interference in administrative decisions.

Court's Analysis

The court noted that under Article 226, judicial review is limited but interference is justified when there is mala fide or perversity, no evidence supports the finding, natural justice principles are violated, there is non-application of mind or the punishment shocks the conscience.

Serious Consequences Principle

The court emphasized that allegations of unfair means have "far-reaching consequences" and create a "stigma" that can adversely affect a candidate's career, requiring stricter adherence to procedural fairness.

Decision

The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated October 29, 2024 and set aside the cancellation of candidature and debarment and directed NBEMS to declare the petitioner's results for both theory and practical examinations within two weeks.

Key Legal Principles

1. Administrative Law

• Natural Justice: Authorities must provide all relied-upon documents to the affected party
• Audi Alteram Partem: Right to be heard meaningfully, not just formally
• Evidence-based Decisions: Administrative decisions must be supported by credible evidence

2. Judicial Review Standards

Courts can interfere when administrative decisions are based on no evidence. Perversity is a ground for judicial intervention. Procedural fairness is essential in disciplinary proceedings.

3. Educational/Professional Examination Law

Higher standards of procedural fairness apply when allegations affect professional reputation. CCTV footage constitutes best evidence in examination misconduct cases. Examination bodies must follow their own prescribed procedures

CHEQUE DISHONOR | SERVICE OF NOTICE ON RELATIVE NOT SUFFICIENT U/S 138 NI ACT UNLESS ACCUSED HAD KNOWLEDGE: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Saju v. Shalimar Hardwares & State of Kerala

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 2, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan (Single Judge)

Background Facts

Saju purchased building materials from Shalimar Hardwares on March 2, 2019, for ₹92,500/-. Saju issued cheque No. 971851 dated April 2, 2019, drawn on State Bank of India, Pallickal Branch. Cheque bounced on April 3, 2019, due to "insufficient funds". Complainant sent legal notice on April 27, 2019.

Key Legal Issue

Whether service of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on a relative of the accused (instead of the accused himself) constitutes valid service of notice?

Court Proceedings

• Trial Court: convicted Saju under Section 138 and sentenced him to 3 months simple imprisonment + ₹92,500/- compensation
• Appellate Court: confirmed conviction but reduced sentence to 1 month imprisonment
• Revision: Filed before Kerala High Court challenging the conviction

Legal Analysis & Reasoning

Section 138(b) Requirements

• The court emphasized that Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that:
• Notice must be served to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of receiving information about dishonour.
• This is a mandatory requirement for prosecution under Section 138.

Evidence Analysis

• Complainant's witness admitted in cross-examination that the notice was served on a relative of the accused, not the accused himself.
• No evidence was presented that the accused had knowledge of the notice being served on his relative.
• The court found this insufficient to establish constructive notice.

Supreme Court Precedent

• The court relied on Thomas M.D. v. P.S. Jaleel and Another, where the Supreme Court held:
• Service of notice on the wife of the accused cannot be treated as compliance with Section 138(b)
• The notice must be served on the drawer himself
• Without proper service, conviction cannot be sustained

Judgment:

The Kerala High Court allowed the revision petition and acquitted Saju on the following grounds:

• Service of notice on relative is insufficient unless complainant proves accused had knowledge of such service
• No evidence of accused's awareness of notice served on relative
• Failure to comply with mandatory requirement of Section 138(b)
• Conviction cannot be sustained without proper service of statutory notice

Key Legal Principles

Section 138(b) requires strict compliance - notice must be served on the drawer personally

• Burden of Proof: Complainant must prove proper service of notice as a prerequisite for prosecution
• Constructive Notice: Service on relative doesn't constitute constructive notice unless accused's knowledge is proven
• Mandatory vs. Directory: Requirements under Section 138 are mandatory, not merely directory