Madras University journalism department examination row: High Court ordered inquiry vindicates student

Madras High Court inquiry confirms examination conducted by University of Madras despite administration's denial, shocking revelations emerge.

An inquiry ordered by the Madras High Court has revealed that an examination in ‘History of Communication’ paper was indeed conducted by the Department of Journalism and Communication in the University of Madras on May 11, 2024 as claimed by a student but, shockingly, refuted by the university administration.

Justice N. Mala had on April 1, 2025 appointed Senior Counsel A.K. Sriram to conduct the inquiry since the university had stoutly denied the conduct of any such examination on May 11, 2024 and opposed a writ petition filed by the student Amanda Miriam Fernandez R. to declare the results of that exam.

The copy of the inquiry report served on the petitioner’s counsel V. Vasanthakumar as well as university counsel V. Sudha stated that the inquiry officer had sent e-mails and WhatsApp messages summoning all seven students, including the writ petitioner, who had supposedly written the May 11 examination for questioning.

However, only the petitioner and two other students responded to the e-mails and WhatsApp messages sent to them by the inquiry officer and appeared in person before him. All three students asserted that the examination was conducted on May 11, 2024 and even a WhatsApp group was created for this purpose.

Research scholar Sharmila initially feigned ignorance about the WhatsApp group, to the inquiry officer, but on being shown the screenshots, she admitted to have created the group on the instructions of the Head of the Department of Journalism and Communication (in-charge) T.R. Gopalakrishnan.

On his part, Mr. Gopalakrishnan told the inquiry officer that the examination conducted on May 11, 2024 was in the nature of a mock exam and that it was conducted since the seven students had attendance issues. He also conceded that the students were asked to pay exam fees.

Stating that the examination was subsequently not approved by the university and therefore, the students could not benefit out of it, the HoD (in-charge) said, he did all of it for the benefit of the students but unfortunately, the decision making authority in the university did not approve the exam.