Possession of exam material alone can amount to unfair means where the rule deems such possession sufficient.

An examination rule deeming possession of papers, books, notes, or other relevant material in the examination hall to be unfair means is satisfied by proof of possession alone. Actual use of the material is unnecessary, and the rule does not require a rebuttable presumption or any distinction between bona fide and mala fide possession. Once incriminating written material relevant to the paper is recovered from the candidate, the misconduct is established under the rule. The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court was wrong to require proof of actual use, and the finding of unfair means could stand on possession alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate found in possession of written material relevant to the examination in the examination hall is deemed to have used unfair means, even if the candidate claims that the material was not actually used.

Analysis: The rule was framed in clear and simple terms: if, during the examination, a candidate is found in possession of papers, books, notes, or other material relevant to the paper concerned, the candidate is deemed to have used unfair means. The requirement of the rule is satisfied by recovery of the incriminating material from the candidate's possession. The rule does not create a rebuttable presumption based on actual use, and it does not distinguish between bona fide and mala fide possession. Once possession of relevant material is proved, the misconduct is established under the rule.

Conclusion: The High Court's view was incorrect. Possession of relevant written material in the examination hall was sufficient to attract the rule and sustain the finding of unfair means.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an examination rule deems possession of relevant material in the candidate's possession during the examination to be unfair means, proof of actual use is unnecessary and the deeming consequence follows from possession alone.

---