Judges caught copying in LL.M exam

ABN's  Andhra Jyothi channel has finished the career of seven judicial officers in Andhra Pradesh who were caught copying from texts and notes during their LL,M correspondence examination that was specially held for judges. Chief Justice Nissar Ahmad Kukru did not loose much time in suspending the judges after watching the CD sent by the TV Channel which vividly showed the misconduct in the Kakatiya University Examination. The judges were taking the examination to get three additional increments and had a free hand at copying since the invigilators were too intimidated to keep an eye on them.

While one was found copying from a law book hidden under his answer sheet, the written slips and pages torn from textbooks were seized from other judges. The judicial officers involved are K Ajitsimha Rao, senior civil judge, Ranga Reddy district, M. Kistappa, principal senior civil judge, Anantapur, P Vijayendar Reddy, second additional district judge, Ranga Reddy district, M. Srinivasachary, senior civil judge in Bapatla of Guntur district and Hanumantha Rao, additional junior civil judge in Warangal were suspended. 

Times of India, PTI AND INN reported that the judges were found copying in a surprise raid by the invigilating squad, totally ignoring the role of the TV channel. INN said: The court directed the University officials to initiate action against all judges who indulged in mass copying, and to submit a comprehensive report on the entire incident. The court also directed the state government to initiate disciplinary action against them for bringing disrepute to the profession. (26^th August 2010) Only the Telugu daily Andhra Jyoti explained how its TV channel team exposed the cheating. As an outcome of this episode the High Court Administration has cancelled this increments-based examination.

Reporter Vijayakumar, of Andhra Jyothi who exposed the judges by venturing into the highly secured area told this author that most judicial officers had chosen the Warangal center as they were given an examination hall away from the scheduled center (University Arts College) against rules. Security guards stood outside the hall to alert them in case the invigilator arrived. The invigilators and squad members were kept away from this special room. When one lecturer caught three judges copying they were let off by the principal after taking an undertaking from them that they would not copy in the next exam. One lecturer was threatened and told that the judges had a huge burden of cases and did not have the time to study.

Andhra Jyothi was tipped off after the judges were caught the first time and gave their uhndertaking to the principal. When reporters tried to enter the examination hall they found it well protected. Finally they jumped the wall, overcame the resistance by the security guard and entered the examination hall with their cameras. They seized the material being used for copying and called the principal on his mobile. With such incontrovertible evidence the authorities were forced to file a case after a panchanama.

Despite threats from the judicial officers taking examinations the reporters remained in the hall till 5 pm to ensure that they did not manipulate the proceedings against them. When the Chief Justice saw the video being beamed on the channel he asked for all the details.  After five officers were suspended the Warangal District Bar wrote to Governor Narasimhan and Dean of Law, Justice L Narasimha Reddy (Judge AP High Court), explaining how Mr Razzak and his wife Prema Rajeswari, both the judicial officers, were also involved in the copying racket. They were also suspended.

"We were tense for two hours as the judges were threatening to jail us for contempt of court," Vijaykumar said. He said some judges who threw out of windows the incriminating material with them before the cameras could focus on them threatened the reporter that they were trespassing and would face action.

In Dayashankar v/s High Court of Allahabad, AIR 1987 SC 1469, the Supreme Court had dealt with a similar problem of malpractice by a judge and struck down all his petitions while confirming the dismissal by Allahabad High Court. In that case District Judge Dayashankar was told, ``You have lowered the reputation of the judiciary for honesty /integrity and you have exhibited an unworthy conduct wholly inconsistent with the dignity of office you occupied." The Disciplinary Committee of the High Court held him guilty and then the Full Court of Judges of Allahabad High Court in charge of administration of justice resolved to remove the guilty officer for copying in the jurisprudence paper of LL.M. examination held in Aligarh University. His contention that some person, disgruntled by his conviction order, provoked his brother to plant a slip of paper when he briefly left the examination hall to go to the toilet was rejected as a concocted story. Setting all his attempts at appeals to rest the Supreme Court said, ``Undoubtedly the judiciary cannot have two standards, one in court and other outside. They have only one standard of rectitude and honesty. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of office they are occupying.’’

The author is Convener: Center for Media Law & Public Policy, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.