NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has come to the aid of a doctor whose examination candidature was cancelled by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) on allegations of using unfair means.
The Board had also barred her from appearing in the exam for the next two years, based on what the Court found to be unsubstantiated claims.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, while setting aside the Board’s decision, emphasised that branding a candidate as having used unfair means could severely damage their professional future.
The Court held that the examining authority is duty-bound to provide all materials relied upon—such as CCTV footage and written statements—so that the accused is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
“The respondent ought to have afforded a meaningful opportunity to the petitioner by furnishing all the documents including the written statement of the petitioner, available statements of exam functionaries, report of the appraiser, CCTV footage, etc., which are either referred to and relied upon in the show cause notice, as well as in the impugned order dated 29.10.2024, or are otherwise relevant,” the Court observed.
The controversy arose after the Board accused the petitioner of copying from handwritten chits during the exam and even alleged that she swallowed the slips after being caught. However, upon reviewing the CCTV footage, the High Court found that the visuals did not support the allegations.
While NBEMS claimed that a pillar had obstructed the view of the petitioner’s seat in the footage, the Court noted that her seat was clearly visible throughout and there was no obstruction.
“The said CCTV footage... makes it evident that the petitioner is not seen putting the chits into her chest and later chewing and swallowing the same, as alleged. The respondent’s counsel has also not been able to pinpoint any footage showing that the petitioner, when confronted, chewed and swallowed the chits.” The Court criticised the Board’s Examination Ethics Committee for not reviewing the footage before making its decision and held that such procedural lapses could not be ignored.
It added that although courts normally do not interfere with findings of disciplinary authorities, exceptions can be made in cases of malice or procedural perversity, especially where the candidate has been denied a fair hearing.
The Court has now directed the Board to declare the petitioner’s result within two weeks.