Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Over ‘Malicious’ Ayodhya Verdict Question in LL.B. Exam. Court says academic freedom cannot be curtailed merely because sentiments are hurt, unless the language used is clearly offensive, defamatory, or unlawful; upholds autonomy of educational institutions in syllabus design.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition from a first-year law student who sought the removal of a question related to the Ayodhya dispute from an LL.B. examination paper.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that academic critiques of legal decisions, even on sensitive topics, should not be considered attacks on religion unless there is clear evidence of deliberate intent to offend.
Also Read: Bengaluru Police Arrest One Person Over Karnataka Law University (KSLU) Exam Paper Leak
The Court stated,
“Challenging certain portion of a question paper solely on the ground that it hurts religious sentiments under Section 295A IPC is not legally sustainable/tenable, unless it is established that the content was included…with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings,”
The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Kumawat, a student at Mahavir Law College in Jaipur, contested a passage from the August 12, 2024 examination in Legal Language, Legal Writing, and General English, conducted by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University.
He argued that the question contained inappropriate remarks about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid case, claiming it was biased and hurt religious sentiments, thereby violating Article 25 of the Constitution and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
Kumawat sought various remedies, including the removal of the content, disciplinary action against the examiner, and a public apology from the university.
However, the Court found his petition lacking in merit and highlighted the importance of maintaining academic freedom.
The Court Remarked,
“The academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions should not be curtailed and compromised merely on the basis that subjective language is alleged to have hurt sentiments, unless there is a clear breach of law or the language used therein is contemptuous, offensive or defamatory.”
Justice Dhand noted that no other students raised concerns regarding the examination content. The judgment reaffirmed that the Constitution safeguards fair and reasoned critique of judicial rulings.
Emphasizing that such expressions should be seen as “a positive and constructive exercise in legal reasoning and critical analysis.”, the Court remarked,
“An academic or personal opinion expressed by a student or teacher or scholar on a legal judgment, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with any religion attack,”
In conclusion, the Court stated that law should be guided by reason rather than sentiment, ultimately dismissing the petition along with all related applications.
Case Title: Anuj Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan
Read Attachment