Chief Justice names law graduate who wanted anonymity after being denied Bar admission

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has named a law graduate who asked for anonymity after she was denied admission to the Bar over her failure to disclose past incidents of plagiarism.

The identification of Ms Pulara Devminie Somachandra came more than three months after Chief Justice Menon published a written decision in April with her identity temporarily withheld pending a psychiatric report.

On Aug 7, after considering the report, the Chief Justice republished his written grounds of decision in full, without redacting her name.

“The principle of open justice is the predominant and overriding interest in this case and there are insufficient grounds for departing from it,” he said in a separate judgment to explain why he lifted the anonymisation.

Open justice refers to the principle that court proceedings are generally conducted in public to promote transparency and ensure that justice must not only be done, but also should be seen to be done.

Chief Justice Menon said that in proceedings involving the legal profession, the default rule that the identities of litigants must be made public is of great importance.

“Open and public proceedings provide a forum for the character of applicants to be scrutinised transparently,” he said, adding that this is important as lawyers are tasked with the responsibility of assisting the court in the administration of justice.

“They also signal to the public that those who are admitted have been publicly assessed as morally competent to meet the high standards of probity expected of members of the legal profession.”

Therefore, he said, withholding an applicant’s name in admission applications would typically be warranted only if there is credible evidence that “grave and disproportionate” harm would follow if the person’s name is published.

In Ms Somachandra’s case, the facts fall short of establishing an imminent and credible risk of grave and disproportionate harm to her if the anonymisation were to be lifted, said Chief Justice Menon.

On her argument that lifting the anonymisation would mean that her past conduct would “come back to haunt her”, the Chief Justice emphasised that those who seek to be admitted to the Bar must put their character up for public scrutiny.

“Moreover, it is contrary to the notion of repentance and rehabilitation for Ms Somachandra to seek to sweep her past misconduct under the rug,” he said.

Ms Somachandra was 28 when the Chief Justice heard her admission application in October 2024.

The woman, who graduated in 2019 from a university in Britain, first attempted the Part A Bar exam in 2020 but failed two papers.

Graduates from approved foreign universities who seek admission to the Bar have to take the Part A exam before taking the Part B exam, which is also taken by graduates from local law schools.

She resat one of the papers later that year, submitting four answer scripts for it. The final answer script contained a significantly fuller answer to one question.

The answer scripts of Ms Somachandra and another candidate, identified only as Ms Tan, were flagged with 80 per cent similarity and 32 blocks of matching texts.

The Singapore Institute of Legal Education concluded that she had collaborated with Ms Tan.

She retook the papers she had failed and passed the Part A exam in 2022 on her fifth attempt. In 2023, she passed the Part B exam.

That year, she applied to be admitted to the Bar without declaring the Part A incident.

Around May 2024, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) contacted Ms Somachandra’s university while it was investigating a separate incident of possible plagiarism.

The university replied that she did not consent to the university providing the information.

After the AGC sought clarifications from her, she eventually consented to the release of the information.

The information showed that, on two occasions in 2018, her failure to attribute material from other sources was found to be “poor academic practice”, while a third incident in June 2019 was found to be “moderate plagiarism”.

In October 2024, after Chief Justice Menon heard her admission application, she asked for her identity to be redacted and submitted a memo from a psychiatrist.

The memo from Dr Lim Yun Chin stated that she had suicidal thoughts and that the publication of a non-anonymised judgment posed an “immediate risk” to her health and safety.

The Chief Justice directed her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).

On April 21, he published his written grounds on an anonymised basis for a fixed interim period, saying that the unredacted form could be published later.

After considering the IMH report that was eventually submitted, Chief Justice Menon said it was significant that her major depressive disorder was found to be of mild severity and has remained stable for many months.

He did not place much weight on Dr Lim’s memo, saying the conclusions were drawn largely on the basis of Ms Somachandra’s self-reported symptoms.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Re Pulara Devminie Somachandra [2025] SGHC 155

ADV: IP Week@SG 2025 Chief Justice allows founder of site that ran fake KKH story to be called to the Bar