K.R Srinivas v. R.M Premchand And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

K.R. Srinivas, son of Professor K.V. Ramana (then Vice-Chancellor of Andhra University), sat for the 1988 final Bachelor of Marine Engineering examinations and initially secured a second division. He sought revaluation in three papers—Industrial Engineering and Management, Production Technology II & Metallurgy, and Design and Machine Element II—after which his marks improved sufficiently for a first division, leading to the conferment of a B.E. (Marine Engineering) degree and subsequent employment.

Allegations surfaced that the revaluation was manipulated due to the Vice-Chancellor’s influence. Amid broader concerns over examination irregularities, the State Government appointed an enquiry commission. In 1991, Dr. R.M. Premchand filed Writ Petition No. 2082/1991 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226, challenging Srinivas’s revalued result in public interest. A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, but a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 53/1993 reversed that decision, branding the result “manipulated” and making adverse remarks against Professor Ramana, though it stopped short of cancelling the degree.

Srinivas appealed to the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No. 2828/1994). A companion appeal (SLP (C) No. 2392/1994) sought expunction of the remarks against Professor Ramana. During Supreme Court proceedings on 15-09-1994, the Court directed production of the original answer books for a neutral re-assessment in Delhi, only to learn that, in accordance with university regulations, they had been destroyed on 14-08-1989—well before the writ petition was filed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court erred in overturning the Single Judge’s dismissal of the public-interest writ petition and in finding that Srinivas’s revaluation was manipulated.

Whether Dr. R.M. Premchand had locus standi to maintain a public-interest litigation in 1991 when the relevant answer books had already been destroyed in 1989.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court initially attempted to determine the truth by inspecting the original answer scripts and engaging independent Delhi-based examiners. The destruction of the answer books, however, rendered such factual verification impossible. Faced with this “fait accompli,” the Court considered two alternatives: endorse the High Court’s finding of manipulation or nullify it entirely. It chose the latter, emphasizing the following points:

Requirement of bona fide public interest: A petitioner invoking public-interest jurisdiction must approach the court with “clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.”

Locus standi and delay: Being a research scholar within the university, Dr. Premchand was presumed to know that university regulations mandated destruction of answer books within six months. Filing the writ petition two years after destruction deprived the Court of the primary evidence and undermined the legitimacy of the petition.

Absence of verifiable evidence: Without the answer books, any judicial conclusion on alleged manipulation would be speculative. The Court refused to affirm a finding of wrongdoing based on suspicion alone.

Consequently, the Court found that Dr. Premchand lacked locus standi and that the Division Bench’s adverse findings rested on an evidentiary void.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS ALLOWED. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment dated 17-12-1993 in W.A. No. 53/1993, restored the operative part of the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition, and expunged all adverse remarks against Professor K.V. Ramana. No order as to costs was made.

Implications: The decision reiterates stringent standards for public-interest litigants, particularly the need for timely filing and bona fide intent. It underscores that courts will not sustain findings of misconduct where primary evidence is unavailable and the petitioner himself is responsible for the evidentiary lacuna. The ruling offers no new substantive precedent but clarifies procedural safeguards against stale or mala fide public-interest actions.

K.R Srinivas v. R.M Premchand And Others

Order

1. Leave granted in both matters.

2. K.R Srinivas, the appellant in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2828 of 1994 is aggrieved against the order of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17-12-1993 passed in Writ Appeal No. 53 of 1993 whereby the Writ Petition No. 2082 of 1991, preferred by Dr R.M Premchand the first respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution, was allowed in public interest. Since certain adverse remarks came to be made by the Division Bench against the father of K.R Srinivas i.e Professor K.V Ramana, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Andhra University, the other appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2392 of 1994 seeks the limited relief of expunction of all those remarks.

3. We are refraining from giving herein the facts elaborately, for we have felt a sense of discomfort and uneasiness in which the High Court's jurisdiction in public interest was invoked at a point of time when the appellant stood cornered and cross-checking became impossible by the court.

4. In the year 1988 Professor K.V Ramana appellant was the Vice-Chancellor of the Andhra University, during which time his son K.R Srinivas appellant sat for the final examination of Bachelor of Marine Engineering. The result declared disclosed that he had passed therein in second division. He applied to the University authorities on two different dates for revaluation of his answer books pertaining to three subjects:

1. Industrial Engineering and Management,

2. Production Technology II Metallurgy, and

3. Design and Machine Element Part II.

5. The re-evaluated result brought him substantially higher marks. As a result K.R Srinivas got a first division and a degree in B.E Marine Engineering on that basis was awarded to him. Allegedly as a result thereof he got a coveted job. There was a furore that the results were manipulated because of the Vice-Chancellor's interest in his son. In the meantime since procedural irregularities in the framing of the result of various candidates got to a scandal, the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed an Enquiry Commission. A couple of years went by. It is in the year 1991 that the respondent Dr R.M Premchand moved the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the result of the appellant only in public interest inter alia on the ground that neither the University was competent to re-evaluate the papers nor could such result be achieved since there were procedural irregularities as also that the result had been manipulated. A learned Single Judge of the High Court elaborately went into the matter. He steered through the air of suspicion dismissing the writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court reversed the learned Single Judge holding that the result of the appellant had been manipulated. The degree awarded was however not cancelled. On the point of cancellation the Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge.

6. While hearing these petitions on 15-9-1994 we were inspired to have a look at the answer books as also the question papers in which results had substantially been improved. We, therefore, required of the University counsel to produce before us the answer books as also the question papers for our inspection today. Anticipating their production we also required learned counsel for the parties to give us a list of examiners for the subjects involved available in the Universities and Institutions functioning in Delhi, together with their addresses and phone numbers, residential as well as official, if possible, so that we could establish contact with any of them. This effort was made to see for ourselves, on inviting the academics, whether there was a real error of assessment in the first result and further whether the rectification by revaluation was erroneous. The other reason was to take away the exercise from Andhra Pradesh to a neutral place like Delhi and that too under our eye. We were hopeful that we would be able to do substantial justice in this way. Our hopes however stand dashed since we are informed that the answer books stood destroyed way back on 14-8-1989, much before the institution of the writ petition even. Now we have felt driven to the wall and have to submit to the fait accompli. One way is to toe the line of the High Court. The second one is to demolish everything. Pained as we are at the writ petitioner choosing the year 1991 for moving the High Court, when the answer books stood destroyed, we would rather opt for the second course. The only hope of Srinivas to emerge innocent, on the destruction of his answer books, stands destroyed. His despair has thus to be met in our remaining masters of the situation.

7. It cannot be forgotten that a writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands, like any other writ petitioner, but must further come with a clean heart, clean mind and a clean objective. We cannot assume that Dr R.M Premchand, who at the relevant time was a Research Scholar and part and parcel of the University, did not know the regulations whereunder the answer books are destroyed within six months from the examination under formal orders of the functionaries. We cannot assume that Dr R.M Premchand did not know about the destruction of the answer books of Srinivas at the time when he moved the High Court in public interest. If this be our impression Dr R.M Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court in public interest at that belated point of time. Therefore, we allow the appeal of Srinivas, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17-12-1993 in WA No. 53 of 1993 and restore the operative part of the order of the Single Bench of the High Court, added with the ground that Dr R.M Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court, in view of the facts and circumstances aforementioned. As a sequel all remarks against Professor K.V Ramana in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court not only get expunged but the whole basis on which they rest stands effaced. His appeal too is allowed.

8. This is the end result of both the appeals. There shall be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 6589 of 1994, Civil Appeal No. 6590 of 1994

K.R Srinivas v. R.M Premchand And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

K.R Srinivas v. R.M Premchand And Others

Comments