High Court in Rajasthan dismisses appeal targeting allegedly harmful inquiry on Ayodhya decision in LL.B. test paper.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anuj Kumar Kumawat, a first-year law student, challenging a question in an LL.B. examination. The case, known as **Anuj Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan**, underscores the importance of academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions.
The petition was filed against a question from the *Legal Language, Legal Writing and General English* examination conducted by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University on August 12, 2024. Anuj Kumawat, a student at Mahavir Law College in Jaipur, alleged that the question was biased, hurt religious sentiments, and violated Article 25 of the Constitution and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
However, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that academic critique of a legal verdict, even one involving sensitive issues like the Ayodhya dispute, does not constitute an attack on religion unless there is deliberate and malicious intent. The Court reiterated that law must be governed by reasons and not by sentiments.
The Court further emphasised that challenging a question solely on the ground that it hurts religious sentiments is not legally sustainable unless deliberate and malicious intent is established. This implies that the mere inclusion of controversial topics in academic assessments does not automatically amount to violating laws related to religious sentiments.
In response to the petition, the Court found no merit in the claims made by Anuj Kumar Kumawat. The petition was dismissed, and the Court stressed the need to protect academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions.
The Court's ruling underscores that academic discussions and critiques of legal verdicts are permissible and do not infringe upon religious rights unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent. Such expression should be viewed as "a positive and constructive exercise in legal reasoning and critical analysis," according to the Court.
This decision supports the principle that educational institutions have the right to foster an environment that encourages open dialogue, critical thinking, and academic freedom. It also reinforces the idea that the Constitution protects fair and reasoned criticism of court verdicts.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court's dismissal of Anuj Kumar Kumawat's petition marks a significant victory for academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions. It emphasises that academic discussions and critiques of legal verdicts are essential components of a vibrant democratic society, and they should be protected and encouraged rather than suppressed.
In the context of this ruling, the importance of academic freedom and self-development, particularly in the realm of learning, is highlighted, as it allows for open dialogue, critical thinking, and the fostering of an environment that encourages academic freedom. This decision underscores the essential role that learning and education-and-self-development play in promoting critical analysis and reasoned criticism of court verdicts.
