Karnataka High Court Rules in Favor of Law Students Over Examination Dispute: IPC, Not BNS, to be Tested

Keywords: Karnataka High Court, Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, law students, Karnataka State Law University, supplementary exam, legal education, curriculum changes, Justice Suraj Govindaraj, fairness in education.

The Karnataka High Court has delivered a crucial judgment favoring law students who had failed their Indian Penal Code (IPC) examination, ruling that they cannot be compelled to take the supplementary examination in the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court emphasized that students cannot be tested on a subject that was not part of their coursework.

The decision, delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, came in response to a petition filed by law students from the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU). The university had proposed that students who failed their IPC exams should now take the supplementary exam in BNS, following the IPC’s repeal and BNS’s introduction into the curriculum.

In his ruling, Justice Govindaraj stated:
“As students who have already attended classes for IPC and have failed in the examination conducted for IPC, it cannot be expected that those students take up the examination for BNS which has never been taught to them in the course structure.”

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty H., argued that while they had studied IPC as part of their curriculum, they had no exposure to the BNS syllabus. They contended that requiring them to take the examination in a subject they had not been taught was unreasonable and unjust.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Advocate Girish Kumar, defended KSLU’s decision, citing the statutory replacement of IPC with BNS. They argued that the change in curriculum was necessitated by legal reforms and should apply to all students.

Court’s Observations

The court rejected the university’s argument, distinguishing between students currently enrolled in IPC and those yet to begin their studies under the new BNS framework. Justice Govindaraj clarified:
“These observations would, however, not apply to students who have not taken up IPC and would be taking up a course in BNS in future.”

The court directed KSLU to hold the supplementary examination for the petitioners in IPC, rather than in BNS, recognizing the students’ lack of preparation and prior instruction in the new subject.

Implications of the Ruling

The judgment highlights the need for fairness and clarity when transitioning between legal course structures. It underscores the principle that students should not be disadvantaged due to systemic changes in curriculum or statutory frameworks.

This ruling sets an important precedent for educational institutions implementing curricular changes following legal or policy reforms, ensuring that students are not unfairly burdened by the transition.

The decision also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding equity in education and respecting students’ rights to be evaluated on the basis of the curriculum they were taught.

As the education system evolves alongside legislative reforms, this judgment serves as a reminder for universities to design clear transitional frameworks that protect students’ interests.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.