{"id":109891,"date":"2020-08-22T14:30:11","date_gmt":"2020-08-22T09:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=109891"},"modified":"2020-08-22T15:31:16","modified_gmt":"2020-08-22T10:01:16","slug":"examining-exams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/cover-story-articles\/focus\/examining-exams\/","title":{"rendered":"Examining Exams"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The University Grants Commission has directed that final exams should be held, with Covid-19 precautions observed and in a possible hybrid form. Proceedings in the Supreme Court on the issue are examining the likely options which affect the future of all students<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Sujit Bhar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court on August 18 reserved its judgment on the very sensitive issue of holding final exams for students amid the Covid-19 environment<\/strong>. The hearing is complete, but the top court asked all the parties to file their written submissions, if any, in three days. Looking at the dilemma of students concerning their future, it is pertinent to look at some of the arguments placed before the apex court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The University Grants Commission (UGC)<\/strong> has directed that final exams should be held, with all precautions observed and in a possible hybrid form. It has set a deadline of September 30. Many students appealed to the Court for the complete cancellation of the exams, asking to be assessed by their performances in earlier semesters, instead. There have been some state universities which support the cancellation theory, though regular exams have started in on\u00adline mode, including in Delhi University<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is not just of the completion of a course by a student, but looking ahead, at his\/her future in the wider world. Technically, if the student is passed, in an en masse decision, his\/her job or higher study prospects would be ruined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta<\/strong> tried to emphasise this point before the bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy<\/strong> and MR Shah<\/strong>. There were three issues to be looked into. The first, whether the UGC had the power to issue such a directive during the pandemic. Second, whether the students\u2019 demand for cancellation was fair. Third, whether enough and ample precautions could be taken so that students were not infected by the coronavirus<\/strong>. The appeal comprised issues about students who would simply not be able to appear for the exams due to unavoidable circumstances\u2014Covid-19-affected<\/strong>, flood-marooned, internet connectivity-starved, living in quarantined zones, financial inability, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mehta made a strong point when he said: \u201cUniversities can seek for the postponement of exams, but they cannot take the decision to confer degrees without holding exams<\/strong>.\u201d This has merit, considering the students\u2019 future. He was following up on senior advocate Vinay Navare\u2019s comment. Navare had said: \u201cAt the most, in its widest amplitude, the deadline can be moved. But, states cannot be directed to not hold the exams at all.\u201d Regarding the power of the UGC, Navare said that the decision taken by it was \u201cwithin the four corners of its powers. It does not exceed its power<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There seems to be a technicality in this. Before making his final submission, Mehta had pointed out that \u201cunder the Disaster Management Act, the central government does have the supremacy to decide.<\/strong>\u201d The UGC guidelines were sent out after getting the nod from the centre. That is the logic Mehta went with, but first it was necessary to establish that the UGC was not exceeding its powers and that there are enough safety precautions available for the entire process (the offline part of it) to take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it was submitted that UGC guidelines issued on July 6 were framed after taking into account recommendations made by the Prof RC Kuhad<\/strong> (vice-chancellor, Central University of Haryana<\/strong>) Committee. Hence, the UGC had not issued a unilateral directive of holding the exams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This has been explained by Prof (retd) Dhananjay Raghunath Kulkarni<\/strong>. He said that in view of Sections 12 and 26 of the UGC Act and the 2003 regulations issued by the UGC regarding minimum standards of instruction for formal higher education, all universities are bound by the revised guidelines issued by the UGC. He explained that initially the UGC had issued guidelines in April, pursuant to the report of the Kuhad Committee, which also comprised various experts and senior officers of the UGC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, considering the evolving situation of the pandemic, in June, the UGC requested the committee to revisit the guidelines on exams and the academic calendar for the universities. The committee submitted a report recommending that terminal semester and final-year exams should be conducted by September in offline or online or blended mode.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on this report, revised guidelines were issued which recommended the conduct of terminal semester and final year university exams by September. However, the mode of conducting the exams has been left open to the concerned universities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That part having been cleared, Mehta said: \u201cThe conducting of final-year exams is a must. One cannot say that holding it is arbitrary.<\/strong>\u201d As an example, he pointed out that recently many universities had conducted (and are conducting) the final-term examinations\u2014online, offline and in hybrid mode. He said: \u201cFinal year is the degree year, so exams cannot be done away with.<\/strong>\u201d Thereby, some light was shed on whether the UGC guidelines were advisory in nature or mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Advocate Kishor Lambat, representing the intervener, highlighted the fact that there were parents who had lost jobs and students were facing financial hardships. Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava said these exams would directly affect the health of lakhs of students and hence health experts should have been consulted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora (she is representing one of the petitioners) said: \u201cSome students can give exams now, some can\u2019t. The leftover students will lose out on opportunities and jobs later on.\u201d The counsel for the Delhi government said: \u201cThe most hard-hit will be the poor, the downtrodden and those without any access to technology. Unless (of course) you decide to give them all tablets<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The health issue, of course, was uppermost. What has been done about it? Mehta pointed out that \u201cthe Standard Operating Procedure issued by UGC talks about thermal scanning, masks and social distancing. All these steps have been taken to ensure that students\u2019 health was fine.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Bhushan interjected: \u201cThe UGC guidelines say that all the health-related guidelines have to be followed\u2026 You cannot say that they have not considered the public health, the guidelines.\u201d The judge had earlier said that \u201c\u2026if it is permissible, then all the universities can evolve their own modalities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

West Bengal Advocate General Kishore Datta said that the UGC had not taken into account the extraordinary situation in view of Covid-19 and decisions were taken as if it was 2019 or 2018. \u201cThey (UGC) are not concerned with public health,\u201d he said. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing an organisation of teachers from West Bengal, said: \u201cThe UGC did not hold \u2018effective consultation\u2019 as was required. If they had consulted even one person per state, they would have understood the difficulties.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If all bases have been covered so far, one can deduce the following:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n