In September 2000, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission threw open the doors of the consumer courts to students and parents and said that universities and educational institutions were liable for negligent services. Three years hence it partially shut the door on students when it held that issues pertaining to exams did not come under the purview of these courts.

When the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 came into being and brought all paid services under the ambit of the consumer courts, it was assumed that the services rendered by schools and universities, including conduct of exams would also come under the scrutiny of these cour- ts. So students took their grievances to these courts and got relief too from the lower ones.

However, in 1996, the apex consumer court threw a bombshell. In its order in the case of Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras vs Mohideen Abdul Kader, it held that:

(a) It was yet to decide on the applicability of the consumer protection law to educational institutions and the various services rendered by them.

(b) In so far as matters pertaining to exams conducted by boards and universities were concerned, consumer courts did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate over such disputes.

Then in 2000, the apex consumer court finally held that educational services did come under the purview of the consumer courts (Bhupesh Khurana vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad, OP no 168 of 1994). Then in several landmark judgments, the Commission took educational institutions to task for their casual attitude towards students’ academic careers.

In the case of Sreedharan Nair vs Registrar, University of Kerala, the National Commission asked the university to pay Rs 50,000 to Nair for the loss suffered by him on account of the university’s failure to give him a law degree after completion of a three-year course in law. (FA no. 643 of 1994).

Similarly in the case of S.D. Seth Mathews vs Mahatma Gandhi University, where the student lost two valuable academic years because the Kerala University failed to inform him at the outset that the SSLC (compartmental) exam of Tamil Nadu was not recognised by it, the apex consumer court upheld the decision of the District Forum to award Rs 35,000 as compensation (RP no 406 of 1997).

However last year in the case of Parveen Rani vs Punjab School Education Board (RP no 2268 of 2000), the apex consumer reaffirmed its earlier view in the case of Mohideen Kader that complaints pertaining to exams conducted by boards and universities, did not come under the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. It reaffirmed this view once again in the case of Amrit Paul vs Chairman, Punjab School Education Board (RP no 556 of 2003).

This is an unfortunate development and takes away students’ access to inexpensive and quick justice through these courts. Hopefully there would be a reversal of this decision. Meanwhile, school boards and universities should constitute independent ombudsmen to redress quickly and impartially, exam-related complaints. They should also hold those responsible for negligent service, accountable.