Law students cite evaluation errors in answer sheets; MU says human oversight
Several students at Mumbai University alleged evaluation errors in the answer sheets of semester examinations of three-year and five-year Law courses.
Students claimed that they were incorrectly marked as having failed, with some sections of answer sheets marked as 'Not Attempted' (NA), despite the questions being answered.
The university said that the error occurred due to human oversight, and action has been initiated against the evaluator concerned.
The university had conducted exams for the sixth semester of the three-year law course and the tenth semester of the five-year law course between April 16 and April 30.
After the results were announced on June 9, several students were marked as failed in subjects like Tax Law and the Indian Evidence Act.
These students then applied for photocopies of their answer sheets, as per the regular process to opt for re-evaluation of the papers.
However, the photocopies revealed that evaluation was not done in many cases. Despite students having written answers, many questions were ultimately marked with the remark 'NA'.
One of the affected students said, 'I scored 33 out of 60. But the photocopy of the answer-sheet reveals that a 14-mark question was not evaluated at all.'
A student activist, Sachin Pawar, who was approached by many of these students, said, 'This is a serious concern. The university's callous approach is dangerous for students' future. The varsity should conduct a re-evaluation of all papers of these subjects and declare a fresh result.'
In a written response to the issue, Mumbai University's Director of Board of Examinations and Evaluations, Pooja Raundale, said, 'In the Law faculty, the number of evaluators is significantly low. In connection with the complaint, upon reviewing the answer sheets of the concerned students, it was found that Question No. 01(i) and Question No. 4(c) had not been evaluated. This error occurred due to human oversight, and action has been initiated against the concerned evaluator. The university will implement necessary improvements in the computer system to ensure such errors do not recur.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said
In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Advocates body seeks CJI intervention after ED issues summons to senior lawyers
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on Friday raised concerns over the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning yet another senior legal professional — this time, senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, and urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take immediate suo motu cognisance of what the body described as a serious infringement on the independence of the legal profession and lawyer-client confidentiality. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar that supported the allotment of the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. While ED had earlier this month summoned Datar as well, that notice was subsequently withdrawn after protests from the legal fraternity. In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair termed the ED's action 'a deeply disquieting development,' cautioning that such coercive measures strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. Venugopal, who was designated as a senior advocate earlier this year, received an ED summons on June 19 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The summons relates to the ongoing investigation into the ESOP matter. In its letter, SCAORA asserted that such actions amount to an 'impermissible transgression' of the sacrosanct principle of lawyer-client privilege. It warned that if left unchecked, this trend could have a chilling effect on the entire legal community, discouraging lawyers from rendering candid legal advice and undermining the independence of the Bar. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated. SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to intervene and examine the legality and propriety of issuing summonses to advocates for professional opinions, besides framing guidelines to prevent future incursions into lawyer-client confidentiality. This is the second time in recent days that the Association has raised its voice against such summonses. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar, terming it 'unwarranted' and indicative of a growing trend of investigative overreach. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association also passed a resolution strongly criticising the ED's move, calling it a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association too convened an emergency meeting the same day, with its president Brijesh Trivedi denouncing the ED's actions as violative of legal independence. The body demanded immediate government action to protect attorney-client privilege through statutory amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Failed MU law students discover that answer sheets were not fully evaluated
MUMBAI: In yet another serious systemic lapse, this time in the examination department, the University of Mumbai's (MU) law faculty failed several students, who later found that their detailed answers in their taxation law and Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam papers had not been assessed at all. After the results, announced nearly a month and a half after the exam, showed these unexpectedly low marks, the students requested photocopies of their answer sheets. They were shocked to find that responses worth nearly 50 out of 75 marks were marked as 'NA' (Not Assessed) during the online evaluation process. Altaf Detha, a student from a Chembur-based college, was among those who failed. 'When I saw my result, I was taken aback,' he said. 'I come from a commerce background and have also done a Company Secretary course. Taxation law is my favourite subject, and I have always scored well in it during college exams.' Following the disappointing result, Detha applied for a copy of his answer sheet and a re-evaluation. 'Even though I had written detailed answers to all the questions covering 50 out of 75 marks, those questions were not checked,' he said. 'At the end of the answer sheet, the evaluator simply wrote 'NA' against more than half the questions.' Another final-year student, who did not want to be named, faced a similar issue. His Bhartiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam (formerly the Indian Evidence Act) paper also had multiple answers left unchecked. 'We have complained to the university administration but no concrete action has been taken yet,' he said. 'Our entire careers are at stake. I pursued law with the aim of beginning legal practice. But with the Bar Council exam around the corner, we won't be able to register or apply for further education because of these errors.' When Detha and the other student visited MU's examination department, they found several other students there with similar complaints. Student organisations have stepped in, demanding urgent action. Advocate Sachin Pawar, a student activist, called the issue 'extremely serious'. 'This is nothing short of playing with the future of students,' he said. 'These repeated blunders, be they during online exams, in marksheets, or now in evaluation, show a serious flaw in the system. The university must act against those responsible or we will be forced to launch a strong protest.' Senate member Pradeep Sawant has also taken the matter seriously and demanded strict action against the culprits. Pooja Roundale, director, Board of Examination and Evaluation, said 'MU adopted the OSM (On-Screen Marking) computer-based answer sheet evaluation system from May 2017. With this system, examiners can check answer sheets online by sitting in the computer lab of their college. During evaluation, if some questions in the answer sheet are not solved by the students, or some pages are blank, the examiner records a remark like NA (Not Attempted) in the system.' Roundale further stated that the law faculty had very few evaluators. 'After reviewing the answer sheets of the students concerned, we found that it was on account of a human error, and action has been initiated against the evaluator concerned,' she said. 'The university will make necessary improvements in the computer system to prevent such human errors from happening again.'
