Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2481
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
Swami Vivekananda University – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.A. No. 17617 of 2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Pinak Mitra, Mr. Debdut Banerjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Suman Sengupta, Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick
Investigating authorities are justified in issuing notices for document production if deemed necessary for ongoing investigations, underscoring procedural adherence to law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - BNSS, 2023 - Notice under Section 94 seeking student scholarship records challenged - Petitioners argued insufficient nexus with the investigation and misuse of powers under Section 94 - Court upheld the legitimacy of the notice citing necessary procedural justification under BNSS for investigation. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 16, 48)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Provisions of Section 91 and 94 - Judicial oversight in issuing document requests - The necessity for relevant documentation during the investigation is emphasized - Unchecked police powers, though extensive, must respect legal boundaries and not infringe on individual liberties. (Paras 42, 46, 48)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the legality of a notice issued under Section 94 of BNSS for producing records related to scholarships of students amid allegations of large-scale examination malpractice and corruption within the educational institution linked to them.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the issuance of the notice justified under the BNSS provisions, aligning with the investigatory needs to prevent miscarriage of justice by securing pertinent materials.
Issues: The pivotal issue was whether the notice under Section 94 was appropriate given the allegations of malpractice against an entity unrelated to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the necessity for documentation in an ongoing investigation supported the issuance of the notice under Section 94, rejecting claims of overreach and misapplication.
Result: Petitioners’ request for quashing of the notice was denied, leading to the dismissal of the writ application.
Petitioners have challenged the notice under Section 94 of BNSS issued by the Investigating Officer of Mohanpur Police Station Case No. 110/25 dated 03.07.2025 which inter alia, directed the Registrar of Swami Vivekananda University (Petitioner No.2) to provide the records of all students who received government scholarships from the institution for last five academic years (2020 to 2025).
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a Private University established under the Swami Vivekananda University Act, 2019 situated at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas and the petitioner no. 2 is the Registrar of the petitioner No. 1.
The genesis of the case relates to a complaint addressed to the Officer- in-Charge Mohanpur, Police Station by one Gopi Bondhu Ganguly, wherein it was alleged that the Centre-in-Charge for Exams organized mass use of unfair means, organized leakage of question paper of the Exam during May, 2025 and also Semester Examinations of West Bengal State Council of Technical and Vocational Education and Skill Development at Regent Institute of Science & Technology at Bara Kanthalia, Telini Para, Barrackpore.
The letter of complaint dated 18th June, 2025 which has been treated to be the First Information Report, is hereby reproduced verbatim as under:
“1. I submit this complaint seeking registration of a cognizable-offence FIR and a prompt investigation into large-scale examination malpractice, criminal conspiracy and corruption that vitiated the May 2025 even-semester examinations conducted by the West Bengal State Council of Technical & Vocational Education and Skill Development (Technical Education Division) at Regent Institute of Science & Technology, Bara Kanthalia, Telini Para, Barrackpore - 700 121 (Centre Code -RIS).
2. The facts herein disclose offences punishable, inter alia, under -
a. Sections -112,406,409,318 of the BNS coupled with the wilful violation of government laws enacted to combat the evils of unauthorized trade in the educational field toying with the future of innocent students.
b. Sections 7, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and C. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (cognizable, non-bailable).
3. The Council’s binding examination guidelines (Memo No. WBSCTVESD/TED/2025-26/0150 dated (06-05-2025) require timed opening of sealed question papers, mandatory presence of an observer, continuous CCTV recording and an absolute ban on mobile-phone use.
4. Contrary to those directions, at Centre Code - RIS:
a. Sealed packets were opened prematurely and not in the observer’s presence.
b. The observer attended only on Day 1 and was wilfully absent thereafter without substitution.
c. Question papers were circulated on WhatsApp/Telegram groups, enabling organized leakage.
d. The Centre-in-Charge instructed faculty to prepare written answers and supply them to examinees.
e. These acts occurred despite CCTV coverage; tampering or deletion of footage is now imminent.
5. The above conduct squarely attracts Sections 3 to 5 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, which criminalise unauthorised possession, leakage or dissemination of" question papers and provision of ready answers.
6. Because the Centre-in-Charge, observer and assisting staff are public servants performing a statutory duty, their acts constitute criminal misconduct by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. During the examination period, approximately 7 reams of A4-size paper (each ream containing about 500 sheets) were requisitioned and subsequently issued by the Store In-Charge, Mr. Milton Ghosh. These papers were allegedly used for typing and writing out answers to the examination questions, indicating a premeditated effort to facilitate organized malpractice.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 165 has underscored that
