2024 (9) TMI 915 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking rescheduling of the CA Intermediate and Final Examinations to the second week of June, 2024 - Ubi jus ibi remedium - HELD THAT - Ubi jus, goes the adage, ibi remedium. A remedy can only follow a right. The hope that the law can be a panacea for every difficulty faced by every citizen in this country, though a cherished ideal, must remain, at the end of the day, Utopian. The mere fact that certain individual candidates may face a hardship in undertaking it cannot constitute the basis for this Court to derail the entire CA Intermediate, or Final, examination, which presently is to be undertaken by as many as 4,36,246 candidates. Indeed, this Court is surprised that such a request has even been made. The respondent has taken care to ensure that no examination is held either on the date of elections or on the date immediately prior thereto. The elections are to be held on 7th and 13th May 2024 and there is no examination scheduled for 6th, 7th, 12th or 13th of May 2024. None of the other dates, for which the examinations are scheduled, conflict in any way, or are even proximate, to the dates on which the elections are to be held. The respondent has, therefore, been proactive and ensured that the right of the candidates, who are to undertake the examinations, to cast their votes, is not affected by conducting of the examinations. The scheduling of the examination has been so done as to ensure that an individual candidate is able, should she so desire, to cast her vote and undertake the examination. No more can be expected of the respondent. It is for the individual candidates now to work out their schedules, and adjust their itineraries accordingly. The petitioners are less than fair to the security administration in place, in their rather bleak prediction that there is likely to be chaos, commotion and violence during elections. General elections are periodically held, and the Court has, given past experience, no reason what so ever to doubt the capacity, or the capability, of the security machinery in place, to ensure that the elections take place in a free and fair atmosphere. The comparison between candidates who are undertaking the examination this year and those who undertook the examination in other years when there were no elections, is completely alien to Article 14. They are neither identically, nor even similarly, situated. Article 14 forbids discrimination amongst equals, not unequals. No plea of discrimination can be based on a comparison between candidates undertaking examinations during election year and others. Else, there would have to be an absolute proscription on holding of examinations during election year altogether. The plea of violation of Article 21 is based on the prediction, of the petitioners, that the entire nation is bound to be in a state of turmoil during elections. There is no basis for this presumption. It is clear on the face of it that this petition is completely bereft of substance. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rescheduling of CA Intermediate and Final Examinations due to the forthcoming Lok Sabha General Elections.
2. Allowing students who miss a particular paper to retake only that paper instead of the entire examination.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 326 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rescheduling of CA Intermediate and Final Examinations:
The petitioners sought the rescheduling of the CA Intermediate and Final Examinations to the second week of June 2024 due to the forthcoming Lok Sabha General Elections. They argued that other institutions, including the UPSC, had postponed examinations due to the elections, creating a legitimate expectation for similar action. They also contended that conducting exams during the election period would impact their right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution and would create logistical difficulties, especially for students with disabilities and female candidates.

The respondent countered that rescheduling the exams would disrupt the entire examination process for 4,36,246 candidates, of whom only 27 had petitioned. They emphasized that no exams were scheduled on election days or the day before, allowing candidates to vote and return in time for their exams. The court agreed with the respondent, noting that the examination schedule had been carefully planned to avoid conflict with election dates, and it was the candidates' responsibility to adjust their schedules accordingly.

2. Allowing Students to Retake Only Missed Papers:
The petitioners alternatively requested that students who miss a paper due to circumstances beyond their control should be allowed to retake only that paper instead of the entire examination. The court rejected this request, stating that it cannot rework the examination rules, which require students to retake the entire examination if they miss any paper.

3. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petitioners argued that conducting exams during the election period would create inequality between candidates from different locations and those who took exams in non-election years. The court dismissed this argument, stating that Article 14 forbids discrimination among equals, not unequals, and the comparison between candidates in election years and non-election years is not valid.
- Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession): The petitioners claimed that the exam schedule would violate their right to practice a profession of their choice. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the ability to undertake the exams was not hindered by the election schedule.
- Article 21 (Right to Life): The petitioners expressed concerns about potential violence during elections, affecting their safety. The court dismissed these concerns as speculative and unfounded, asserting confidence in the security arrangements during elections.
- Article 326 (Right to Vote): The court noted that the examination schedule did not conflict with the election dates, allowing candidates to vote and return for their exams.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the examination schedule had been carefully planned to avoid conflicts with election dates and that individual hardships could not justify disrupting the entire examination process. The court also stated that the petitioners' concerns about potential violence and logistical difficulties were speculative and did not warrant rescheduling the exams. The court concluded that the petition was "completely bereft of substance" and dismissed it, allowing the examination schedule to remain unchanged. If the respondent decides to reschedule the exams of its own accord, this judgment will not act as a barrier.