Saturday, June 22, 2024

Major Criminal Acts 2023

K G Sasi

 

The Parliament has passed the major Criminal Laws namely The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replacing Indian Penal Code, 1860, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 respectively. These Acts come into force with effect from 01.07.2024.

I have compiled each one of these Acts with all relevant materials and enabled them to be downloaded from https://archive.org. The works are 

 

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 With Official Notes

 

You may download and share the book from the link  

https://archive.org/details/the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-with-official-notes

 

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 With Official Notes

 

 

You may download and share the book from the link  

https://archive.org/details/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023-with-official-notes

 

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 With Official Notes

 

 

You may download and share the book from the link  

https://archive.org/details/the-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-2023-with-official-notes

Thursday, March 19, 2020

SOME OLD ARGUMENTS ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND CORRUPTION


K.G. Sasi
1.1. THAT THE UNHEALTHY AND CORRUPT PRACTICES IN JUDICIARY ARE GRADUALLY INCREASING. HENCE ADEQUATE MECHANISM TO ADDRESS SUCH THREATS INSIDE THE JUDICIARY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE IN JUDICIARY AND PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Lord Atkin in Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322 at 335) has remarked, “Justice is not a cloistered virtue….. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.” In Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 440 Lord Diplock opined that, “if the way that courts behave cannot be hidden from the public ear and eye, this provides a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy and maintains the public confidence in the administration of justice”.  In Brown v. Allen 344 US 443, Justice Jackson concluded, “There is no doubt that, if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
In P.N. Duda vs. P.Shiv Shanker & Ors. 1988 (3) SCC 167 When Minister P. Shiv Shankar spoke in a language like “Madhadhipatis like Keshavananda and Zamindars like Golaknath evoked a sympathetic cord nowhere in the whole country except the Supreme Court of India. And the bank magnates, the representatives of the elitist culture of this country, ably supported by industrialists, the beneficiaries of independence, got higher compensation by the intervention of the Supreme Court in Cooper's case. Antisocial elements i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their heaven in the Supreme Court,” the Supreme Court had the wisdom to treat it as fair criticism. Unhealthy and Corrupt practices of the higher Judiciary was unknown to people of that era.
The old saying that ‘power corrupts man and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is held by the Court not to be applied in appeals etc. as it would undermine the proper discharge of the due administration of justice. Before India became a republic and did not have a Constitution of its own, the Constituent Assembly removed Justice Sinha from Supreme Court for being guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. After the constitution came into existence no Judge could be removed so far.  V. Ramaswami (Son in law of Justice K. Ramaswami) was found guilty for ostentatious expenditure on his official residence and his removal motion even though in Loksabha in 1991 got simple majority of 196 against Nil, did not succeed as it did not constitute the majority of the total membership of the house, due to an abstention from the Ruling Party Indian National Congress, mainly due to the reason that Kapil Sibel, a congress leader was the Counsel of Justice Ramaswami. Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court P D Dinakaran, who was also a dalit while facing removal on charges of corruption and judicial misconduct, resigned from the post of Sikkim high court Chief Justice on 29 July 2011 expressing "lack of faith and confidence" in the three-member inquiry Committee probing charges against him. Recently Calcutta High Court Judge Soumitra Sen was found guilty of misappropriating large sums of money and making false statements regarding it. On 18 August 2011, Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion by overwhelming majority of 189 votes in favour and 17 against. He resigned on 1 September 2011 before the matter came up for consideration before Loksabha on 5 & 6 September 2011. All these judges do receive postretirement benefits.  In 1995     A.M. Bhattacharjee, the chief justice of the Bombay High Court was forced to resign in 1995 after it was found that he had received Rs.70 lakh as book advance from a publishing firm known to have links with the underworld.
In 1996     Ajit Sengupta , the Calcutta High Court judge made it a routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement
In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual favours for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to fix a case in her favour. A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie evidence against Justice Mr.· Arun Madan. He did not attend court anymore and resigned.
Three judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought the help of disgraced PPSC chief R.P. Sidhu to ensure that their daughters and other kin topped examinations conducted by the commission. Judges are M.L. Singh, Mehtab Sing Gill & Amarbir Singh. Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to him.
In Gaziabad Provident Fund Scam 24 Judges were accused of which three were High Court Judges among whom Justice Tarun Chatterjee was elevated to the Supreme Court. In Para 9 of the judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State Of U.P. And Others on 26 August, 2013, Allahabad High Court has stated, “The CBI filed a charge sheet under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of PAC, 1988 in the Court of Special Judge, CBI on 03.07.2010 against six former District Judges (three of whom were later elevated to this Court and now retired), 48 Class-IV employees, 23 Class-III employees and the then Central Nazir, Ashutosh Asthana of Ghaziabad Judgeship.”
But Ashutosh Asthana, who was considered as the master mind of the crime and was willing to name all beneficiaries of the scam including the Judges, was poisoned under judicial custody and wad murdered, which according to the version of the jail authorities is a suicide only. In para 11 of the judgment Court finds, “It is said that Mr. Ashutosh Asthana, the alleged kingpin in the entire episode died unnatural death in jail. To what extent that will reflect upon the prosecution case, cannot be adjudged at this stage but has to be seen by the Trial Court.” In para 64 the Court concludes, “In the present case, besides the employees of District Judgeship, certain judicial officers have also been inducted. It is not their individual honour and social status which is at stake, but even public confidence in judicial establishment is also at the stake. The society is already shocked of having learnt of such a huge financial scam in a judicial establishment and is further likely to dwindle its faith, if the trial is prolonged. Truth with certainty, in such a sensitive important matter, should surface at the earliest, which is of utmost importance.” The offence was registered as Crime No. 152 of 2008, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120 IPC and Sections 8, 9, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, on 15.02.2008. But no logical conclusion in the case is arrived at so far. Even though such registration of FIR was not followed as per the dictum laid down in K. Veeraswami case, High Court and Supreme Court found the procedure adopted appropriate and issued directions accordingly.
Even when the Allahabad High Court was directing stringent action, the Court found it appropriate to issue suo motu notice for contempt to the Outlook magazine for publishing the names of the Judges involved in the blameworthy Provident Fund Scam, only to be set aside by the Supreme Court in Maheshwar Peri and others v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2016 on the ground of limitation of one year as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Calcutta Justice C.S. Karnan was punished by the Supreme Court for Contempt of Court in In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan in Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2017 on the ground that he has raised allegations against High Court and Supreme Court Judges.
The Medical College Scam is a recent scam involving higher echelons of Judiciary where in Justice Narayan Shukla was subjected to Supreme Court appointed enquiry committee and was found guilty. It is reported that the Chief Justice of India using his administrative power has restricted Justice Narayan Shukla from hearing cases and that CJI has written to the President and Prime Minister to consider the removal of Justice Narayan Shukla.
All Collegium members of the Supreme Court except the Chief Justice of India called a press meeting on 12.01.2018 and stated that the Supreme Court is not functioning properly and that democracy will not survive if that institution is not protected. It is revealed that there is no transparency in allocation of cases among benches, that the senior most Judges of the Supreme Court are neglected in the functioning of the Supreme Court and that the case in respect of Justice Loya is one among the issues.
It is evident from the above that the unhealthy and corrupt practices in judiciary are gradually increasing.
In In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, in their joint judgment, Justice Chelameshwar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi has remarked,
28. We are only sad to point out that apart from the embarrassment that this entire episode has caused to the Indian Judiciary, there are various other instances (mercifully which are less known to the public) of conduct of some of the members of the judiciary which certainly would cause some embarrassment to the system.
 Hence adequate mechanism to address such threats inside the judiciary is necessary to protect the faith of the people in judiciary and proper administration of justice. Thus it is high time to have a mechanism for judging the judges.
1.2. THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN MANY JUDGMENTS HAVE REITERATED THAT A SEPARATE MECHANISM OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT IS NECESSARY TO CURTAIL THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY BY HIGHER ECHELONS OF JUDICIARY.
In In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, Justice Chelameshwar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi expresses their anguish as,
But the standards and procedure for impeachment of judges are much more rigorous for reasons obvious. There can be deviations in the conduct of the holders of the offices of constitutional courts which do not strictly call for impeachment of the individual or such impeachment is not feasible. Surely there must be other ways of dealing with such cases. The text of the Constitution is silent in this regard. May be it is time for the nation to debate this issue.
But such warnings were issued many times earlier. But before going to them some of the Privileges of the Judges may be considered first.

Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is reproduced below.
“77. Act of judge when acting judicially.- Nothing is an offence which is done by a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.”
Section 197 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is reproduced below.
“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause
(b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.”
Section 3 of the The Judges Protection Act (1985) gives additional protection to judges as,
3. Additional protection to Judges.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.”
All civil or criminal cases wherein judges are involved are not heard by executives, but only by competent judicial officers as per provisions of Constitution, Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Special legislations.
Feeling still unsafe from the apprehended executive harassment of Judges, the Supreme Court have given additional safeguards to protect Judges from being subjected to civil or criminal trial, precedents such as D.C. Saxena v. State of Haryana & Ors (1987 AIR 1463, 1987 SCR (3) 346) and K. Veeraswami v. Union of India ((1991) 3 SCC 655).

In D.C. Saxena v. State of Haryana & Ors the Supreme Court has refused the right of defence to the contemnor on the ground that,
“The court has to consider the nature of the imputations, the occasion of making the imputations and whether the contemnor foresees the possibility of his act and whether he was reckless as to either the result or had foresight like any other fact in issue to be inferred from the facts and circumstances emerging in the case. The reason is obviously that the court does not sit to try the conduct of a judge to whom the imputations are made. It would not be open to the contemnor to bring forward evidence or circumstances to justify or to show whether and how fairly imputations were justified because the judge is not before the Court. The defence justification to an imputation would not, therefore, be available to the contemnor. The imputation of improper motives or bias cannot be justified on the principle of fair contempt.”
This finding is a denial of the rights as provided in Sections 3 to 8 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the defence of truth is recognised in Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344. Once Justice C.S. Karnan, a Supreme Court Judge was punished in In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan and by K. Veeraswami v. Union of India power to register FIR was given to appropriate authorities, though with sanction of Chief Justice or President of India as the case may be, the absolute immunity of the judges have been partially taken away by the Supreme Court. Thus it is corollary that interested persons may raise allegations against High Court and Supreme Court Judges with adequate proof before the appropriate authority. The law being so, it shall no more be in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience to deny the above said defences to alleged contemnors, solely for the reason that they raise allegations against sitting judges with adequate materials.
In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, the main dispute had been whether CBI should be allowed to continue the prosecution of Justice Ramaswami for which the Chief justice gave consent. It was on the request of the counsel for CBI, the Apex Court issued the guide lines in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India. According to that judgment,
“In order to adequately protect a Judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President will consult the Chief Justice of India who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing an FIR against the Judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter. The President shall act in accordance with advice given by the Chief Justice of India. If the Chief Justice is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the Judge concerned, the President shall not accord sanction to prosecute the Judge. This will save the Judge concerned from unnecessary harassment as well as from frivolous prosecution against him.”
The grounds for arriving at the above guidelines are the following apprehensions,
1. “Frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment” (Justice Ray, page 683).
2. “The executive being the largest litigant is likely to misuse the power to prosecute the Judges. That apprehension in our over-litigious society seems to be not unjustified or unfounded” (Justices Shetty and Venkatachaliah, page 707). Misuse “by the executive for collateral purpose”.
3. “Publicity will have a far reaching impact on the Judge and the litigant public” (Justices Shetty and Venkatachaliah, page 708).
As the above mentioned statutory and other privileges are available to the Judges, There is no necessity for any other protection. The history in India do not reveal that any of the Judges of the higher echelons ever got removed or punished by any action initiated by the Executive.
Justices Shetty and Venkatachaliah speaks in K. Veeraswami case,
“The judiciary has no power of the purse or the sword. It survives only by public confidence and it is important to the stability of the society that the confidence of the public is not shaken. The Judge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality and rectitude are in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not command confidence of the public. He must voluntarily withdraw from judicial work and administration.”
The experience proves that such judges would stick on their posts so long as they could. For example all the three Judges against whom impeachment procedure were initiated, did not show the integrity as shown by Lal Bahadur Sastri during the railway accident, or of Minister K. Visvanathan or Veerenrakumar. Even today reports suggest that Justice Narayan Shukla is not ready to step down even though the Chief Justice of India has asked him to do so. In the circumstances, there should be some mechanism to keep away the Judges who have lost their public trust as the very foundation of Judicial integrity is based on the faith of the general public.
1.3. THAT THE VIGILANCES OF THE HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT EITHER LEGALLY OR FUNCTIONALLY TO ADDRESS SUCH MISCARRIAGES OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY AND THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND PROVIDES FOR INVESTIGATIONS BY THE EMPOWERED AUTHORITIES IN ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY APPROPRIATE COURTS.
Supreme Courts and High Courts have their own Internal Vigilance Mechanism.
Grievances related to judiciary are forwarded to the Secretary General Supreme Court of India/Registrar General of the concerned High Court for further action, as appropriate.

Grievances relating to Judges of Supreme Court are forwarded to the Chief Justice of India and grievances related to Judges of the High Courts are forwarded to Chief Justice of the concerned High Courts for appropriate action. (As the Judiciary is independent, Government does not ask for action taken report nor sends reminders to them. Grievance holders are advised to seek information from the concerned Courts directly in this regard)

The grievance holders are advised to send the grievances pertaining to the Supreme Court/High Courts directly to them on the below mentioned e.mails in order to expedite disposal of their grievances. Eg. High Court of Kerala              rsjhc.ker@nic.in

Enquiry by Superior judges, compulsory abstaining from judicial works for certain periods, transfer etc are normal methods of curtailing miscarriage of judicial integrity. This is not seen adequate, as there is no support of law for such actions except Supreme Court Rules,
In India as detailed earlier attempt to remove judges were defeated either by political split or by resignation of the judge. The only incident where a judge got punished was in the case of C.S. Karnan, that too only as a result of an open fight against the Supreme Court Judges.
Thus it can be concluded that the Vigilance of the High Courts and Supreme Court are not sufficient either legally or functionally.
In K. Veeraswami case, facts reveal that a case was filed against justice Veeraswami for disproportionate income as early as 1977 and he was set free after 26 years in 2003 on the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This is an example how controlled prosecution results in acquittal.
As K. Veeraswami case set guidelines in a case wherein prosecution was sanctioned, the guidelines and subsequent decisions have only resulted in inordinate delay. Similarly the Gaziabad Provident Fund Scam also is gaining the speed of a snail. Justice delayed is justice denied.
In this regard the law of the land starting from the filing of FIR to the conviction or acquittal as provided by the Constitution, Civil procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code are seen upset with a result that the corrupt judges benefit from it.
Section 154 of Criminal procedure Code provides for First Information Report. It is a general procedural law, which is proved to be efficient and is applicable to all Indians. In K. Veeraswami case, it is stated that “a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court comes within the definition of public servant and he is liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of 'the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence the Supreme Court is bound to facilitate the prosecution as per Prevention of Corruption Act, and therefore should liberally give prosecution sanction, in fit cases.
1.4. THAT THE CBI OR ANY OTHER INVESTIGATING AGENCY CAN INVESTIGATE THE CASE ONLY AFTER REGISTERING AN FIR. IF THERE IS NO FIR SUCH INVESTIGATING AGENCY SHALL BE INCAPACITATED FROM GATHERING EVIDENCE. VEERASWAMY CASE MANDATES THAT FIR CAN BE REGISTERED ONLY AFTER GETTING SANCTION BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, OR THE PRESIDENT AS THE CASE MAY BE, AFTER PRODUCING SUFFICIENT MATERIALS FOR THE PURPOSE. THIS IS CONTRARY IN ITSELF AND ULTRA VIRES. THERE SHOULD ME PROPER AND EFFICIENT MECHANISM TO ADDRESS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS, ON THE GROUND OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.   THAT IF THE PETITIONERS MAKING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS, ARE DEALT WITH AS IN D.C. SAXENA CASE, NOBODY SHALL DARE TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL MISCARRIAGE SHALL REMAIN BURIED AND SHALL STRENGTHEN. 
In Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India And Others (1997) 4 SCC 65, Supreme Court of India has warned that “No greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people in judicial institutions when judges of higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges.” Such practice of highly criticizing subordinate judges were common due to their miscarriage in judicial functions.
Judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013 Supreme Court has issued the following guide lines,
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”
Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.”
Thus for an investigation law mandates that an order of court is not essential. Therefore, the judgment in Veeraswami case is ultra vires Cr.P.C.

Saturday, January 26, 2019

തൃശ്ശൂർ ഗവണ്മെന്റ് ലോ കോളേജിലെ മൂന്നാം വർഷ എൽ.എൽ.ബി. ഫൈനല്‍ സെമസ്റ്റർ 2019 ജനുവരി റിസള്‍ട്ട്


ഒടുവില്‍ സകലരും നന്നാവാന്‍ തീരുമാനിച്ചു
കെ.ജി. ശശി
102 പേരുള്ള ഈ ബാച്ചിലെ 101 പേര്‍ക്കേ യൂണിവേഴ്സിറ്റി രജിസ്റ്റര്‍ നമ്പര്‍ അനുവദിച്ചിരുന്നുള്ളൂ. അതില്‍ ഫൈനല്‍ സെമസ്റ്റരിലെത്തിയപ്പോള്‍ 11 പേരുടെ രജിസ്ട്രേഷന്‍ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു. 13 പേരുടെ റിസള്‍ട്ട് തടഞ്ഞു വച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അത് കഴിച്ച് ഉള്ള 76 പേരില്‍ സഞ്ജന ഇന്റര്‍ഷിപ്പ് റെക്കോര്‍ഡ്‌ വക്കുക മാത്രമേ ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളൂ. ബാക്കി 75 പേരുടെ റിസള്‍ട്ട്‌ ആണ് ഈ വിശകലനത്തിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനം. രജിസ്ട്രേഷന്‍ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടവരുടെയും  റിസള്‍ട്ട് തടഞ്ഞു വയ്ക്കപ്പെട്ടവരുടെയും പട്ടിക താഴെ ചേര്‍ക്കുന്നു.
NOT REGISTERED  OR RESULT WITHHELD STUDENTS OF 3 YEAR 6 SEM RESULTS JAN 2019
Sl. No.
NAME / REGISTER NO
NOT REGISTERED 
WITHHELD
1
LTAPLBU001
A A SAJINA

2
LTAPLBU003

ABHIRAM P K
3
LTAPLBU010
ANISHAD A

4
LTAPLBU013

ANNA JOLLY
5
LTAPLBU014

ANSILA C .A
6
LTAPLBU018
ARJUN K.G

7
LTAPLBU019
ARUNA C N

8
LTAPLBU023
ASWATHI O.B

9
LTAPLBU024

ASWIN K R
10
LTAPLBU032

BISMI T.A
11
LTAPLBU037

FAZULUL ABID P
12
LTAPLBU041
HARINARAYANAN A

13
LTAPLBU043

JAYAKUMAR V.V.
14
LTAPLBU046
JISMEMOL JAMES

15
LTAPLBU057
NANDAGOPAN M.C.

16
LTAPLBU059

NINOJ P.L.
17
LTAPLBU062

PAREETH K.B.
18
LTAPLBU063
PRAJEENDHERLAL C.P.

19
LTAPLBU067
PRIYADARSAN P.V.

20
LTAPLBU068

RAKESH CHANDRAN
21
LTAPLBU069

RAMESH P.N.
22
LTAPLBU081

SAMSUDDEEN K.P.
23
LTAPLBU082

SANAL C.S.
24
LTAPLBU096
SYAMPRASAD P.G.


2019 ജനുവരി 25 നാണു റിസൾട്ട് വന്നത്. 75 പേരിൽ ഏഴിൽ ഏഴു പരീക്ഷകളും പാസായവർ 70 പേരാണ്. മുമ്പിതു 68 ഉം 74 ഉം 67ഉം 42ഉം 33ഉം വീതമായിരുന്നു. അതിനാൽ വിജയശതമാനം 93.33.  മുമ്പിതു 78.16% 82.22%, 75.28%, 42%,  33% വീതം ആയിരുന്നു. ഇപ്പോൾ പാസ്സായ 70 പേരിൽ പെൺകുട്ടികൾ 40 പേരും ആൺകുട്ടികൾ 30 പേരുമാണു. അഞ്ചാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ പാസ്സായ 68 പേരിൽ പെൺകുട്ടികൾ 40 പേരും ആൺകുട്ടികൾ 28 പേരുമാണു.നാലാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ പാസ്സായ 74 പേരിൽ പെൺകുട്ടികൾ 41 പേരും ആൺകുട്ടികൾ 33 പേരുമായിരുന്നു. മൂന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ പെൺകുട്ടികൾ 40 പേരും ആൺകുട്ടികൾ 27 പേരുമായിരുന്നു. രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ പെൺകുട്ടികൾ 32 പേരും ആൺകുട്ടികൾ 10 പേരുമായിരുന്നു. ഒന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ അവർ യഥാക്രമം 26ഉം 7ഉം ആയിരുന്നു.
കഴിഞ്ഞ തവണ വാങ്ങിയതിനേക്കാൾ കുട്ടികൾ മൊത്തം 3014 മാര്‍ക്ക് കൂടുതല്‍ വാങ്ങി. അതായത് ആളോഹരി 40.19 മാര്‍ക്ക് കൂടുതല്‍. അഞ്ചാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ കുട്ടികൾ മൊത്തം 1574 മാര്‍ക്ക് കുറവേ വാങ്ങിയുള്ളൂ, ആളോഹരി 18.092 മാര്‍ക്ക് കുറവ്. എന്നാൽ നാലാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ കുട്ടികൾ മൊത്തം 2425 മാര്‍ക്ക് അധികം വാങ്ങിയിരുന്നു, ആളോഹരി 26.944 മാര്‍ക്ക് കുടുതല്‍. ഒന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററിനെ അപേക്ഷിച്ച് ശരാശരി 7.7128 മാർക്കു കുറവാണു രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ വാങ്ങിയിരുന്നത്. രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്ററിനെ അപേക്ഷിച്ച്  44.41 മാര്‍ക്ക് കുടുതല്‍ മൂന്നാം സെമാസ്റ്ററിൽ ലഭിച്ചു. അതായത് രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ കുട്ടികൾക്ക് ആകെ 26262 മാർക്കു ലഭിച്ചിടത്ത് മൂന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ 30748 മാർക്കു, നാലാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ 33173 മാർക്കു എന്നിങ്ങനെ നേടാനായി. അഞ്ചാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ ഇത് 31599 ആയി കുറഞ്ഞു. ആറാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ ഇത് 34613 ആയി കൂടി.

ഈ സെമസ്റ്ററിലെ ഏറ്റവും മികച്ച കുട്ടികൾ
ഒന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ 60ശതമാനത്തിനു മേലെ 11 പേർക്കു മാർക്കു ലഭിച്ചിരുന്നു. രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ അത് 16 പേരായി. മൂന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററിൽ 44 പേരും, നാലാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ 57 പേരും അഞ്ചാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ 59 പേരും ആയി ഇത് ഉയര്‍ന്നു. ആറാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ ഇത് 65 ആയി കൂടി. അവരുടെ പേരു വിവരം താഴെ ചേർക്കുന്നു.

TOP RANKERS IN SIXTH SEMESTER
Reg No
Name
TOTAL
%
71
REMA K M
536
76.57
51
KAVYA K M
519
74.14
28
BALU ARAVIND
516
73.71
31
BINDU K.V
514
73.43
76
SABEENA V H
514
73.43
52
KAVYA S BABU
510
72.86
101
VIVET DECOUTH
507
72.43
98
TINTU MOL P.R
505
72.14
16
ARATHY M.R
504
72.00
86
SASI K G
504
72.00
90
SONY THERESE P J
504
72.00
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
503
71.86
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
503
71.86
7
ALEENA BABU
498
71.14
60
NOUSHILA V T
497
71.00
75
RIYA SUNILAN
495
70.71
89
SNEHA JOHN
495
70.71
40
GOKUL P.S
494
70.57
99
TOM GEORGE
489
69.86
83
SANGEETH S.A
482
68.86
74
RIJIN S.S
481
68.71
95
SYAMILY C.S
481
68.71
87
SHAIN P S
479
68.43
78
SAFIULLA SYED
479
68.43
73
RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
475
67.86
72
REMYA K S
474
67.71
70
RAVIPRASAD P
471
67.29
35
DIGNA DAVID
469
67.00
33
CHINTHU P S
468
66.86
85
SARANYA P.T
468
66.86
8
AMAL STANLY
467
66.71
64
PRATHIBHA K P
466
66.57
9
AMRUTHA P.S
465
66.43
61
OSHIN MENDEZ
464
66.29
5
AKHILA PAUL T
463
66.14
48
JOE THOMAS
462
66.00
79
SAJEELA V S
462
66.00
91
SOUMYA RAJ V.R
462
66.00
92
SREEJA K S
462
66.00
22
ARYA P MOHAN
459
65.57
50
KATHARIN XAVIER
458
65.43
4
AJITH K.S
457
65.29
26
ATHIRA T.A
457
65.29
17
ARCHANA T.K
456
65.14
55
MINU V.A
453
64.71
29
BASIL JOY
452
64.57
100
UMA MAHESWARY K.R
451
64.43
58
NIKHITHA T.S
450
64.29
97
TINCY M.B
449
64.14
25
ASWINKUMAR K S
447
63.86
2
ABDUL RAHIMAN E.K
445
63.57
12
ANJALI N A
443
63.29
56
NAJMA M H
442
63.14
20
ARUN S NAIR
441
63.00
65
PRATHYASH E S
441
63.00
42
ISMAIL NOOR SALAM
440
62.86
36
FARHAN M M
437
62.43
30
BENRAJ K.R
433
61.86
39
GILDY NANDAN
432
61.71
77
SABU T S
429
61.29
93
SUBRAMANIAN E.V
426
60.86
45
JISHMA K.S
425
60.71
27
ATHUL S
423
60.43
47
JOBY D JOSEPH
423
60.43
49
JOSE PAUL
421
60.14

നമ്മുടെ കൂട്ടത്തിൽ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ മാർക്കു ലഭിച്ച (536) രമയ്ക്കു അഭിനന്ദനങ്ങൾ. മനസ്സില്‍ അഗസ്ത്യാര്‍കൂടവുമായി നടക്കുമ്പോളാണ് രമ ഈ വിപ്ലവം സൃഷ്ടിച്ചത്. 519 മാര്‍ക്കുള്ള കാവ്യ രണ്ടാം സ്ഥാനവും 516 മാര്‍ക്കുള്ള ബാലു അരവിന്ദ് മൂന്നാം സ്ഥാനവും 514 മാര്‍ക്ക് നേടിയ ബിന്ദു, സബീന എന്നിവര്‍ നാലാം സ്ഥാനവും കയ്യടക്കി.
രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ നാനൂറിനു മേല്‍ രണ്ടു പേരെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളൂ. മൂന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ അത് 17 പേരായി നാലാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ 25. അഞ്ചാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ അത് 19. ആറാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ അതേ നിലവാരത്തിനു തുല്യമായ 467 മാര്‍ക്കിനു മേലുള്ളവര്‍ 31 പേരുണ്ട്. 500 മാര്‍ക്കില്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ ഉള്ള 13 പേര്‍ ഉള്ളത് ഏറെ അഭിനന്ദനാര്‍ഹം തന്നെ.

ആറു സെമസ്റ്ററുകളിലും കൂടി 60%ത്തിനു മേൽ മാർക്കു നിലനിറുത്തിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണ്
TOP SCORERS OF SIX SEMESTER TOGETHER ABOVE 60%
Revaluation and supplementary not considered
Reg No
Name
GRAND
TOTAL
%
51
KAVYA K M
2643
71.43
71
REMA K M
2593
70.08
76
SABEENA V H
2587
69.92
60
NOUSHILA V T
2581
69.76
16
ARATHY M.R
2570
69.46
101
VIVET DECOUTH
2569
69.43
52
KAVYA S BABU
2547
68.84
40
GOKUL P.S
2543
68.73
89
SNEHA JOHN
2495
67.43
31
BINDU K.V
2491
67.32
98
TINTU MOL P.R
2488
67.24
90
SONY THERESE P J
2461
66.51
86
SASI K G
2448
66.16
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
2444
66.05
7
ALEENA BABU
2437
65.86
28
BALU ARAVIND
2422
65.46
95
SYAMILY C.S
2402
64.92
35
DIGNA DAVID
2389
64.57
17
ARCHANA T.K
2385
64.46
99
TOM GEORGE
2385
64.46
64
PRATHIBHA K P
2380
64.32
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
2354
63.62
5
AKHILA PAUL T
2352
63.57
83
SANGEETH S.A
2348
63.46
9
AMRUTHA P.S
2347
63.43
72
REMYA K S
2331
63.00
74
RIJIN S.S
2323
62.78
22
ARYA P MOHAN
2320
62.70
61
OSHIN MENDEZ
2302
62.22
50
KATHARIN XAVIER
2292
61.95
85
SARANYA P.T
2292
61.95
12
ANJALI N A
2288
61.84
78
SAFIULLA SYED
2280
61.62
26
ATHIRA T.A
2266
61.24
48
JOE THOMAS
2245
60.68
70
RAVIPRASAD P
2245
60.68
75
RIYA SUNILAN
2243
60.62
87
SHAIN P S
2242
60.59




38 പേരുള്ള  ഈ ലിസ്റ്റില്‍ 2 പേര്‍ക്ക് 70%ത്തിലധികം മാര്‍ക്കുണ്ട്. 71.43% മാര്‍ക്കോടെ ഈ ലിസ്റ്റില്‍ ഒന്നാം സ്ഥാനത്തുള്ള കാവ്യക്ക് അഭിനന്ദനം. കാവ്യ രണ്ടാം സെമസ്റ്റര്‍ മുതല്‍ ഒന്നാം സ്ഥാനം മറ്റാര്‍ക്കും വിട്ടു കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ല. രണ്ടാം സ്ഥാനത്ത് 70.08%  ആറാം സെമസ്റ്ററിലെ സ്കോറും ലോക്കല്‍ സെല്‍ഫ് ഗവണ്മെന്റിലെ പുതിയ 71 മാര്‍ക്കുമാണ് പഴയ എട്ടാം സ്ഥാനത് നിന്നും രണ്ടാം സ്ഥാനത്തെത്തിച്ചത്. നൌഷീലയും സബീനയും ഇത്തവണ ഇന്റെര്‍ണ്‍പ്ഷിപ്പ് മാര്‍ക്കില്‍ കനത്ത തിരിച്ചടി നേരിട്ട്. അവരുടെ സാധാരണ പെര്‍ഫോര്‍മന്‍സും അവര്‍ക്ക് ഈ ഇനത്തില്‍ കിട്ടിയ മാര്‍ക്കും പൊരുത്തപ്പെടുന്നില്ല. ആണ്‍കുട്ടികളില്‍ ക്ലാസ് റെപ്പിന്റെ അധിക ജോലി ഭാരത്തിനിടയിലും ഗോകുല്‍ ഒന്നാം സ്ഥാനം നിലനിറുത്തി. പക്ഷെ ഈ സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ ഒരല്പം പുറകോട്ടു പോകേണ്ടി വന്നില്ലായിരുന്നെങ്കില്‍ ഗോകുല്‍ കുറേക്കൂടി മെച്ചപ്പെടുമായിരുന്നു. ഈ കണക്കുകളിൽ റിവാല്യുവേഷൻ മാർക്കുകൾ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നതിനാൽ മറ്റു ചിലരും ഒരു പക്ഷേ ലിസ്റ്റിൽ ഇടം പിടിച്ചേക്കാം. കൂടാതെ റാങ്കിങ്ങിലും വ്യത്യാസം വന്നേക്കാം. എല്ലാവർക്കും അഭിനന്ദനങ്ങൾ. 

N.B. സബീനയ്ക്ക് ഒന്നാം സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍ കോണ്‍സിസ്റ്റൂഷന്‍ 1 നു 8 മാര്‍ക്ക് റിവാല്യുവേഷനില്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് അവള്‍ അറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അപ്പോള്‍ സബീനയ്ക്ക് 2595 മാര്‍ക്കും 70.14%വും രണ്ടാം സ്ഥാനവും ലഭിക്കും. അങ്ങനെയെങ്കില്‍ രമ മൂന്നാമാതാകും.
ഏറ്റവും വലിയ കോട്ടവും നേട്ടവും
ഈ സെമസ്റ്ററില്‍  ഏറ്റവും കോട്ടമുണ്ടാക്കിയ മീനു സുന്ദര്‍ലാലിന് പക്ഷെ കഴിഞ്ഞ തവണത്തെക്കാള്‍ 19 മാര്‍ക്ക് കൂടുതല്‍ ഉണ്ട്. പക്ഷെ മൊത്തം മാര്‍ക്ക് 100 കൂടിയിടുണ്ടല്ലോ. കഴിഞ്ഞ തവണ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതല്‍ കോട്ടമുണ്ടാക്കിയ ബേസില്‍ ജോയ് ഇത്തവണ 292 മാര്‍ക്ക് കഴിഞ്ഞ തവണത്തെക്കാള്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ വാങ്ങി.


ഓരോ പേപ്പറിന്റേയും റിസൾട്ട് ഇനി പ്രത്യേകം പരിഗണിക്കാം

CP- 23 LAW OF INDIRECT TAXATION
ഈ വിഷയത്തിൽ 73 പേർ ജയിച്ചു 2 പേര്‍ തോറ്റു. അതിൽ തന്നെ മാർക്കിന്റെ വിശദാംശങ്ങൾ താഴെ ചേർക്കുന്നു.
MARKS


50 marks
3

51-59
31

60-69
39

>70
0

Total Pass
73

FAILED
2
TOTAL STUDENTS
75

ആകെ 73 പേർ പാസായതിൽ 3 പേർക്ക് മോഡറേഷനെ ആശ്രയിക്കേണ്ടി വന്നു. ആര്‍ക്കും 70% ത്തിലധികം മാർക്കില്ല. ഓരോ കുട്ടിക്കും ഈ വിഷയത്തില്‍ നേടാനായ ശരാശരി മാര്‍ക്ക് 58.87 മാത്രം. എങ്കിലും അനു ടീച്ചര്‍ മോശമാക്കിയില്ല.
ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 60%ത്തിലധികം മാർക്കു കിട്ടിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണു.

Reg No (LTAPLBU)
Name
MARKS
51
KAVYA K M
69
98
TINTU MOL P.R
68
31
BINDU K.V
67
48
JOE THOMAS
67
52
KAVYA S BABU
67
60
NOUSHILA V T
66
101
VIVET DECOUTH
66
64
PRATHIBHA K P
65
71
REMA K M
65
40
GOKUL P.S
64
75
RIYA SUNILAN
64
7
ALEENA BABU
63
55
MINU V.A
63
76
SABEENA V H
63
83
SANGEETH S.A
63
86
SASI K G
63
87
SHAIN P S
63
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
63
89
SNEHA JOHN
63
90
SONY THERESE P J
63
16
ARATHY M.R
62
28
BALU ARAVIND
62
33
CHINTHU P S
62
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
62
74
RIJIN S.S
62
85
SARANYA P.T
62
99
TOM GEORGE
62
17
ARCHANA T.K
61
79
SAJEELA V S
61
92
SREEJA K S
61
100
UMA MAHESWARY K.R
61
12
ANJALI N A
60
21
ARYA CHANDRAN
60
58
NIKHITHA T.S
60
70
RAVIPRASAD P
60
72
REMYA K S
60
78
SAFIULLA SYED
60
95
SYAMILY C.S
60
97
TINCY M.B
60

CP- 24 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
ഈ വിഷയത്തിൽ 75ല്‍ 75 പേരും ജയിച്ചു 100% നേടി. മാർക്കിന്റെ വിശദാംശങ്ങൾ താഴെ ചേർക്കുന്നു.

50 marks
6

51-59
30

60-69
32

>70
7

Total Pass
75

FAILED
0
TOTAL STUDENTS
75
അതിൽ 6 പേർ ജയിച്ചത് മോഡറേഷനിലൂടെയാണ്. 7 പേർക്കു 70% ത്തിലധികം മാർക്കും 32 പേർക്ക് 60%ത്തിനു മേലും മാർക്കു ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ശരാശരി മാര്‍ക്ക്  60.31. ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 60%ത്തിലധികം മാർക്കു കിട്ടിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണു. അഭിലാഷ് സാറിനു ഒരിക്കല്‍ കൂടി അഭിനന്ദനങ്ങള്‍.
Reg No
Name
MARKS
76
SABEENA V H
73
7
ALEENA BABU
71
75
RIYA SUNILAN
71
5
AKHILA PAUL T
70
71
REMA K M
70
99
TOM GEORGE
70
101
VIVET DECOUTH
70
9
AMRUTHA P.S
69
28
BALU ARAVIND
69
31
BINDU K.V
69
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
69
90
SONY THERESE P J
69
74
RIJIN S.S
68
8
AMAL STANLY
67
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
67
92
SREEJA K S
67
26
ATHIRA T.A
66
33
CHINTHU P S
66
83
SANGEETH S.A
66
86
SASI K G
66
91
SOUMYA RAJ V.R
66
98
TINTU MOL P.R
66
4
AJITH K.S
65
29
BASIL JOY
65
30
BENRAJ K.R
65
72
REMYA K S
65
79
SAJEELA V S
65
51
KAVYA K M
64
78
SAFIULLA SYED
64
87
SHAIN P S
64
95
SYAMILY C.S
64
77
SABU T S
63
89
SNEHA JOHN
63
2
ABDUL RAHIMAN E.K
62
16
ARATHY M.R
62
27
ATHUL S
62
73
RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
62
35
DIGNA DAVID
61
60
NOUSHILA V T
60

OP-06 LAND LAWS (INCLUDING TENURE AND TENANCY SYSTEM)
നമ്മളിൽ 75ല്‍ 74 പേര്‍ ഇതില്‍ ജയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്.

50 marks
3

51-59
19

60-69
40

>70
12

Total Pass
74

FAILED
1
TOTAL STUDENTS
75
40 പേര്‍ക്കു 60%-69%,  12 പേര്‍ക്കു 70% ത്തിനു മേല്‍ മാര്‍ക്ക് ഉണ്ട്. 3 മോഡറേഷന്‍ ഉണ്ട്.  ശരാശരി മാര്‍ക്ക് 62.72 ഉണ്ട്. തിയറി പേപ്പറുകളില്‍ ഏറ്റവും മികച്ച ശരാശരിയാണിത്. സുമി ടീച്ചറെ പ്രത്യേകം അനുമോദിക്കുന്നു.
ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 60%ത്തിനു മേലേ മാർക്കു വാങ്ങിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണ്.
Reg No
Name
MARKS
71
REMA K M
76
73
RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
76
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
76
31
BINDU K.V
74
16
ARATHY M.R
73
101
VIVET DECOUTH
73
76
SABEENA V H
72
95
SYAMILY C.S
72
7
ALEENA BABU
71
89
SNEHA JOHN
71
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
70
98
TINTU MOL P.R
70
28
BALU ARAVIND
69
74
RIJIN S.S
69
86
SASI K G
69
22
ARYA P MOHAN
68
90
SONY THERESE P J
68
20
ARUN S NAIR
67
26
ATHIRA T.A
67
35
DIGNA DAVID
67
40
GOKUL P.S
67
51
KAVYA K M
67
52
KAVYA S BABU
67
8
AMAL STANLY
66
21
ARYA CHANDRAN
66
25
ASWINKUMAR K S
66
72
REMYA K S
66
75
RIYA SUNILAN
66
83
SANGEETH S.A
66
87
SHAIN P S
66
60
NOUSHILA V T
65
91
SOUMYA RAJ V.R
65
99
TOM GEORGE
64
78
SAFIULLA SYED
63
79
SAJEELA V S
63
92
SREEJA K S
63
9
AMRUTHA P.S
62
17
ARCHANA T.K
62
29
BASIL JOY
62
50
KATHARIN XAVIER
62
55
MINU V.A
62
64
PRATHIBHA K P
62
77
SABU T S
62
5
AKHILA PAUL T
61
42
ISMAIL NOOR SALAM
61
85
SARANYA P.T
61
4
AJITH K.S
60
30
BENRAJ K.R
60
33
CHINTHU P S
60
39
GILDY NANDAN
60
58
NIKHITHA T.S
60
97
TINCY M.B
60

OP- 07 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
ഇതില്‍  72 പേർ ജയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്, 3 തോല്‍വി. 70%ത്തിനുമേൽ 2 പേരും 60%ത്തിനു മേല്‍ 19 പേരും 51%ത്തിനു മേൽ 26 പേരും  7 മോഡറേഷന്‍കാരും ഉള്‍പ്പെടുന്നു.  തിയറി പേപ്പറുകളില്‍ ഏറ്റവും കുറഞ്ഞ  ശരാശരി മാര്‍ക്ക് 56.69 മാത്രമേ ഇതിനുള്ളൂ. എങ്കിലും മോശമെന്ന് പറയാനാവില്ല. ജോബി ടീച്ചര്‍ക്ക്  അഭിനന്ദനനങ്ങള്‍.
50 marks
7
51-59
44
60-69
19
>70
2
Total Pass
72
FAILED
3
TOTAL STUDENTS
75

ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 60%ത്തിനു മേലേ മാർക്കു വാങ്ങിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണ്.
Reg No
Name
MARKS
76
SABEENA V H
73
7
ALEENA BABU
71
75
RIYA SUNILAN
71
5
AKHILA PAUL T
70
71
REMA K M
70
99
TOM GEORGE
70
101
VIVET DECOUTH
70
9
AMRUTHA P.S
69
28
BALU ARAVIND
69
31
BINDU K.V
69
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
69
90
SONY THERESE P J
69
74
RIJIN S.S
68
8
AMAL STANLY
67
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
67
92
SREEJA K S
67
26
ATHIRA T.A
66
33
CHINTHU P S
66
83
SANGEETH S.A
66
86
SASI K G
66
91
SOUMYA RAJ V.R
66
98
TINTU MOL P.R
66
4
AJITH K.S
65
29
BASIL JOY
65
30
BENRAJ K.R
65
72
REMYA K S
65
79
SAJEELA V S
65
51
KAVYA K M
64
78
SAFIULLA SYED
64
87
SHAIN P S
64
95
SYAMILY C.S
64
77
SABU T S
63
89
SNEHA JOHN
63
2
ABDUL RAHIMAN E.K
62
16
ARATHY M.R
62
27
ATHUL S
62
73
RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
62
35
DIGNA DAVID
61
60
NOUSHILA V T
60

OP- 08 GENDER JUSTICE AND FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE
ഇതില്‍  74 പേർ ജയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്, ഒരു തോല്‍വി. ശ്യാമിലിപ്രിയക്ക്‌ മാത്രമേ  70%ത്തിനു മേൽ ആര്‍ക്കുമില്ല മാർക്ക്. 60%ത്തിനു മേൽ 36പേര്‍, 5 മോഡറേഷന്‍ എന്നിവയാണ് മാര്‍ക്കുകള്‍. ശരാശരി 58.76. സോണിയ  ടീച്ചര്‍ക്കു അഭിനന്ദനനങ്ങള്‍.
 50 marks
5
51-59
33
60-69
36
>70
0
Total Pass
74
FAILED
1
TOTAL STUDENTS
75

ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 60%ത്തിനു മേലേ മാർക്കു വാങ്ങിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണ്.
Reg No
Name
MARKS
28
BALU ARAVIND
67
52
KAVYA S BABU
67
60
NOUSHILA V T
67
71
REMA K M
67
31
BINDU K.V
66
51
KAVYA K M
66
76
SABEENA V H
66
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
66
86
SASI K G
65
89
SNEHA JOHN
65
90
SONY THERESE P J
65
101
VIVET DECOUTH
65
7
ALEENA BABU
64
40
GOKUL P.S
64
85
SARANYA P.T
64
2
ABDUL RAHIMAN E.K
63
8
AMAL STANLY
63
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
63
64
PRATHIBHA K P
63
74
RIJIN S.S
63
75
RIYA SUNILAN
63
38
GIBY PAUL VARGHESE
62
70
RAVIPRASAD P
62
72
REMYA K S
62
98
TINTU MOL P.R
62
9
AMRUTHA P.S
61
35
DIGNA DAVID
61
48
JOE THOMAS
61
50
KATHARIN XAVIER
61
83
SANGEETH S.A
61
99
TOM GEORGE
61
16
ARATHY M.R
60
17
ARCHANA T.K
60
36
FARHAN M M
60
58
NIKHITHA T.S
60
100
UMA MAHESWARY K.R
60
ഫെമിനിസ്റ്റ് ജുറിസ് പ്രൂഡന്‍സ് നമ്മുടെ ബാലുവിനാണ് ഏറ്റവും നന്നായി മനസ്സിലായിട്ടുള്ളത് എന്നതില്‍ ബാലു വക്കീലിനെ നമുക്ക് അനുമോദിക്കാം. തുല്യ മാര്‍ക്കോടെ അവന്റെ കൂടെയുള്ള കാവ്യ എസ്. ബാബു, നൌഷീല, രമ എന്നിവര്‍ക്കും അനുമോദനം.
PT- 04 MOOT COURT EXCERCISE
പ്രാക്ടിക്കലിനിരുന്ന 76 പേരും ജയിച്ചു. ഏറ്റവും കുറവ് മാര്‍ക്ക് കിട്ടിയ അനീഷിനു പോലും 64% ഉണ്ട്. 13 പേർക്കു 90%ത്തിലധികം,  43 പേർക്കു 80%ത്തിലധികം,  19 പേർക്കു 70%ത്തിലധികം, ശരാശരി 83.88. മൂട്ട് ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പുല്ലാണ്! അഭിലാഷ് സാറും ലിനിപ്രിയ ടീച്ചറും പ്രസീദ മാഡവും ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് തന്ന അടിത്തറക്ക് നന്ദിയുണ്ട്!
60-69
1
70-79
19
80-89
43
90-100
13
Total Pass
76
FAILED
0
TOTAL STUDENTS
76

 ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 80%ത്തിനു മേലേ മാർക്കു വാങ്ങിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണു
Reg No
Name
MARKS
51
KAVYA K M
95
40
GOKUL P.S
94
52
KAVYA S BABU
94
71
REMA K M
93
28
BALU ARAVIND
92
60
NOUSHILA V T
92
90
SONY THERESE P J
92
16
ARATHY M.R
91
76
SABEENA V H
91
86
SASI K G
91
98
TINTU MOL P.R
91
70
RAVIPRASAD P
90
78
SAFIULLA SYED
90
87
SHAIN P S
89
99
TOM GEORGE
89
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
88
89
SNEHA JOHN
88
95
SYAMILY C.S
88
2
ABDUL RAHIMAN E.K
87
7
ALEENA BABU
87
56
NAJMA M H
87
61
OSHIN MENDEZ
87
75
RIYA SUNILAN
87
93
SUBRAMANIAN E.V
86
12
ANJALI N A
85
15
ANURAJ P.S
85
20
ARUN S NAIR
85
31
BINDU K.V
85
65
PRATHYASH E S
85
97
TINCY M.B
85
9
AMRUTHA P.S
84
33
CHINTHU P S
84
35
DIGNA DAVID
84
73
RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
84
85
SARANYA P.T
84
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
84
8
AMAL STANLY
83
17
ARCHANA T.K
83
92
SREEJA K S
83
101
VIVET DECOUTH
83
5
AKHILA PAUL T
82
29
BASIL JOY
82
58
NIKHITHA T.S
82
72
REMYA K S
82
22
ARYA P MOHAN
81
25
ASWINKUMAR K S
81
50
KATHARIN XAVIER
81
55
MINU V.A
81
64
PRATHIBHA K P
81
83
SANGEETH S.A
81
91
SOUMYA RAJ V.R
81
21
ARYA CHANDRAN
80
26
ATHIRA T.A
80
42
ISMAIL NOOR SALAM
80
47
JOBY D JOSEPH
80
48
JOE THOMAS
80

PT- 05 INTERNSHIP PROGRAMME
ഈ പരീക്ഷയും ചരിത്രമാണ്. പ്രാക്ടിക്കലിനിരുന്ന 77 പേരില്‍ 76 പേര്‍ ജയിച്ചു. ഏറ്റവും കുറവ് മാര്‍ക്ക് കിട്ടിയ അനീഷിനു പോലും 64% ഉണ്ട്. 6 പേർക്കു 90%ത്തിലധികം,  38 പേർക്കു 80%ത്തിലധികം,  22 പേർക്കു 70%ത്തിലധികം, ശരാശരി 80.28. ആകപ്പാടെ വലിയ കുഴപ്പമില്ല. എങ്കിലും മൂട്ടിനേക്കാളും ഇന്റെണ്‍ഷിപ്പ് പ്രയാസമാകുകയും നന്നായി പഠിക്കുന്ന ചിലര്‍ക്ക് പോലും വലിയ കുറവ് ആപേക്ഷികമായി മാര്‍ക്കില്‍ വന്നതും അത്ഭുതം ഉണര്‍ത്തുന്നു. പ്രേംസി മാഡത്തിനും പ്രേമലത മാഡത്തിനും ബിന്ദു മാഡത്തിനും നന്ദി.
50-59
5
60-69
5
70-79
22
80-89
38
90-100
6
Total Pass
76
FAILED
1
TOTAL STUDENTS
77

ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ 80%ത്തിനു മേലേ മാർക്കു വാങ്ങിയവർ താഴെ പറയുന്നവരാണു
Reg No
Name
MARKS
16
ARATHY M.R
96
71
REMA K M
95
28
BALU ARAVIND
94
52
KAVYA S BABU
93
86
SASI K G
93
34
DHARMAPAL P.K
92
31
BINDU K.V
88
51
KAVYA K M
88
78
SAFIULLA SYED
88
73
RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
87
83
SANGEETH S.A
87
85
SARANYA P.T
87
48
JOE THOMAS
86
70
RAVIPRASAD P
86
89
SNEHA JOHN
86
90
SONY THERESE P J
86
93
SUBRAMANIAN E.V
86
98
TINTU MOL P.R
86
2
ABDUL RAHIMAN E.K
85
4
AJITH K.S
85
33
CHINTHU P S
85
75
RIYA SUNILAN
85
101
VIVET DECOUTH
85
61
OSHIN MENDEZ
84
99
TOM GEORGE
84
7
ALEENA BABU
83
12
ANJALI N A
82
40
GOKUL P.S
82
74
RIJIN S.S
82
76
SABEENA V H
82
88
SHYAMILIPRIYA P.P
82
91
SOUMYA RAJ V.R
82
92
SREEJA K S
82
95
SYAMILY C.S
82
100
UMA MAHESWARY K.R
82
9
AMRUTHA P.S
81
87
SHAIN P S
81
17
ARCHANA T.K
80
30
BENRAJ K.R
80
36
FARHAN M M
80
50
KATHARIN XAVIER
80
60
NOUSHILA V T
80
64
PRATHIBHA K P
80
97
TINCY M.B
80


മോഡറേഷൻ തമാശകൾ
എല്ലാവരും വേര്‍ പിരിഞ്ഞതിനാല്‍ ഇനി വലിയ തമാശയൊന്നും പറയുന്നില്ല. എങ്കിലും അഖില്‍ എസ്. കുമാറിന് ചില റെക്കോര്‍ഡുകള്‍ ഉണ്ടെന്നു മാത്രം പറയട്ടെ.
ഈ സെമസ്റ്ററിലെ അക്രമം
മീനു സുന്ദര്‍ലാല്‍, ജിബി, പ്രിന്‍സ്, അഖില്‍ എന്നിവരെ സ്നേഹപൂര്‍വ്വം സ്മരിക്കുകയും അബ്ദു റഹിമാന്‍ സാറിനോട് റീവാല്യുവേഷനു കൊടുക്കാന്‍ ആശംസിക്കുകയും മാത്രം ചെയ്യുന്നു.
allnews BookFinder BookChums Libgen gutenberg bookyards archive feedbooks Openlibrary manybooks librivox digitallibrary bibliomania infomotions.com authorama readeasily googlebooks booksshouldbefree classicly digilibraries free-book.co.uk epubbooks pdfbooks malayalam-blogsheet thanimalayalam chintha cyberjalakam varamozhi malayalamblogroll thappiokka KPSC civil services UPSC Kerala Govt. Kerala High Court Supreme Court Kerala University Calicut University Cochin University Kannur University M.G. University SSUS Agri. University University of Health Sciences India Govt. Kerala Entrance Exams indiavisiontv manoramanews ibnlive epapers-hub asianetglobal dooradarshantvm amritatv sunnetwork newsat2pm finance dept. kerala egazette priceindia railradar wikimapia bhuvan google keralapolice Indiaegazette Keralaegazette Indiankanoon Asianlii CaseStatus IndiaCode Goidirectory Advocatekhoj Worldlii