The vehement contention of the University Counsel
that, petitioner in his mail dated 02.03.2020 has admitted
the ‘offence of plagiarism’, is difficult to countenance;
petitioner had sent a mail of the kind vide Annexure-R5, is
true, though unfairly enough, he has not whispered about
this in the Writ Petition; it is a representation ‘to
reconsider my case’ of plagiarism and not an admission;
true it is that, there are a few stray sentences such as ‘This
is my first plagiarism violation’; however, the same is
followed by other sentences which seek to explain why it is
not a case of plagiarism; he has specifically stated that
certain things needed to be mentioned as they are and,
that would not amount to plagiarism; even in his mail
dated 28.2.2020 at Annexure-R1 to the S.O., he has
written ‘This is my first violation’; but this too is followed
by a denial in the very same paragraph.
f) It has been a long settled position of law that a
stray sentence giving the impression of admission of the
guilt shall not be interpreted in isolation when the rest of
the matter in the representations suggests the contra; one
has to gather a holistic impression from reading the entire
text and not a few sporadic sentences appearing here &
there in a script, whilst considering if what is stated
amounts to admission. An acclaimed jurist of yester
decades Mr.Rupert Cross in his treatise ‘EVIDENCE’, (3rd
Edn. London- Butterworks 1967) at page 433 states: “An
admission being any statement … which is adverse to a
party’s case, the only conditions of admissibility, when the
statement emanates from the party himself concern the
capacity in which he is acting and the reception of the
entirety of the statement…”; it is more so when one is
dealing with the educational career of young minds like the
petitioner herein; loose & lavish wording of the
representations, need to be given a due discount; the
respondent –University is not justified in seeking shelter
under a leaking umbrella of a poor student.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 9395 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI HRUDAY. P B Vs THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY,
DATED: 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
Petitioner who joined the Five Year B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
Course in the respondent – University from the Academic
Year 2017-18, is declared to have secured “F Grade” in
Child Rights Law examination held on 13.03.2020 since he
was not given any mark because of alleged plagiarism of
the Project Work in question; he was also not allowed to
take Special Repeat Examination of third trimester in the
third year, allegedly in breach of assurance of the
University.
2. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondent
- University, petitioner has knocked at the doors of Writ
Court with the following prayers:
“(i) To call for the records relating to issue of
impugned endorsement by the 2nd respondent
University dated 01.08.2020 vide Annexure-H
and the order dated 10.08.2020, passed by the
1st respondent against the appeal of the petitioner,
(vide Annexure-L1) denying the petitioner
admission to Fourth Year B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) for the
Academic Year 2020-21 and after perusal set
aside the same.
(ii) To direct the respondent University to await
result of extra seminar course that the petitioner is
permitted to pursue in July, 2020 and get himself
promoted to Next Year”.
3. After service of notice, the respondents having
entered appearance through their advocate, have filed
Statement of Objections on 17.10.2020 and make
submission in justification of the impugned action.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court
is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner as under and for
the following reasons:
a) The essential grievance of the petitioner emanates
from the so called ‘admitted’ charge of plagiarism and
therefore, advertence to the extant Regulations
concerning the same becomes relevant; Clause 4 of
Regulation III of the B.A LL.B (Hons.) Academic and
Examinations Regulations of 2009 reads as under:
“(4) Plagiarism:
a) Any evidence of plagiarism, if found by
the subject teacher, in the form of noncitation
of sources or copying from another
student’s project or form his/her own earlier
project without acknowledgment of the same,
will result in the matter being referred to the
UGC Chairperson by the subject teacher in
writing as also a written intimation to the
student in this regard by the teacher.
b) If the matter is referred to the UGC
Chairperson by the teacher, the UGC
Chairperson shall refer the matter to the Vice
Chancellor immediately. The Vice Chancellor,
in turn, shall look into the matter and decide
whether to refer the matter to the Disciplinary
Matters Advisory Review and Investigation
Committee (hereinafter, “DARIC”) for
disciplinary action at the earliest. In the
event that the Vice Chancellor decides not to
refer the matter to the DARIC, he shall record
his reasons in writing for the same.
c) Pending the decision of the Vice
Chancellor or the DARIC, if referred thereto,
viva voce for the project shall be conducted.
d) If the student is found guilty of
plagiarism, he/she shall be punished as per
the DARIC Rules”.
Apparently, this provision of the Regulations prescribes an
elaborate procedure with several hierarchical checks &
balances, presumably because very serious consequences
follow a proven act of plagiarism; the text & context of the
said Regulation show both the prescription of procedure
and designation of the personnel, who process the
complaint of plagiarism stagewise.
b) These Regulations do not define plagiarism, is not
in dispute; in fact, the University Circular dated
04.10.2019 at Annexure-R9 to the S.O. states: “From the
2nd term of A.Y. 2019-20, the U.G. Council will clarify the
concept and application of Plagiarism rules through FAQs
to be circulated in the first fortnight of this term. The AER
2009 will be applied in full from November 2019”; therefore
the concept needs to be understood in a common parlance;
Ramanatha Aiyar’s “Advanced Law Lexicon” 3rd Edn,
Wadhwa Nagpur states: “Plagiarism: Publishing borrowed
thoughts as original; stealing literary matter from the work
of another author. The act or an instance of copying or
stealing another’s words or ideas and attributing them as
ones own”; the learned Lexicographer also mentions about
Paul Goldstein’s ‘Copyright’s Highway 12 (1994) which
lucidly explains the concept as under:
“Plagiarism, which many people commonly
think has to do with copyright, is not in fact a
legal doctrine. True plagiarism is an ethical,
not a legal, offense and is enforceable by
academic authorities, not Courts. Plagiarism
occurs when someone – a hurried student, a
neglectful professor, an unscrupulous writer –
falsely claims someone else’s words, whether
copyrighted or not, as his own. Of course, if
the plagiarized work is protected by copyright,
the unauthorized reproduction is also a
copyright infringement.”
c) Plagiarism is a very serious matter that involves
ethics and reputation of the student/person concerned;
proven plagiarism operates as a hazardous stigma at the
campus and the person carrying the same is ordinarily
shunned; it may affect his educational and employment
opportunities as well; that is the reason, why the
respondent-University has taken appreciable pains in
meticulously structuring the provision in the extant
Regulations so that the innocents are not victimized;
however, it has not adhered to the minimum of the
fairness standards enacted therein; ‘more is not necessary
to specify and less is insufficient to leave it unsaid’. There
is absolutely no material on record to show that the
subject teacher having found the evidence of plagiarism
had referred the matter to the UGC Chairman in writing
and had sent a written intimation to the student;
petitioner came to know of the alleged plagiarism only after
enquiry with the Registry of the University when his exam,
result was not announced; this act of the University
constitutes a grave error apparent on the face of the
record.
d) The entire episode of so called ‘plagiarism’ is
framed on the basis of a few notoriously cryptic mails
exchanged between the Course Teacher and the Exam
Department, detrimentally keeping the petitioner in
darkness; the said mails are printed on a short paper at
Annexure-R7 to the S.O., and the same are reproduced
hereunder:
“Subject: FW: Turnitin report –reg.
--------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Suchithra Menon C. <suchithra@nls.ac.in>
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Turnitin report –reg.
To: Third Year LLB <thirdllb@nls.ac.in>
Yes, the projects are plagiarized.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 10:57 AM Third Year LLB
<thirdllb@nls.ac.in> wrote:
Madam,
Pl, indicate if the project is plagiarized and send the
report.
With best regards
D.K. Keshavamurthy,
Exam dept.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:47 PM Dr. Suchithra
Menon C. <suchithra@nls.ac.in> wrote:
Thanks for the mail.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, 16:39 Third Year LLB
<thirdllb@nls.ac.in> wrote:
Madam,
PFA, the following students having similarity index
more than 30%. Pl, indicate the remarks.
With best regards
D.K. Keshavamurthy,
Exam dept.”
e) The vehement contention of the University Counsel
that, petitioner in his mail dated 02.03.2020 has admitted
the ‘offence of plagiarism’, is difficult to countenance;
petitioner had sent a mail of the kind vide Annexure-R5, is
true, though unfairly enough, he has not whispered about
this in the Writ Petition; it is a representation ‘to
reconsider my case’ of plagiarism and not an admission;
true it is that, there are a few stray sentences such as ‘This
is my first plagiarism violation’; however, the same is
followed by other sentences which seek to explain why it is
not a case of plagiarism; he has specifically stated that
certain things needed to be mentioned as they are and,
that would not amount to plagiarism; even in his mail
dated 28.2.2020 at Annexure-R1 to the S.O., he has
written ‘This is my first violation’; but this too is followed
by a denial in the very same paragraph.
f) It has been a long settled position of law that a
stray sentence giving the impression of admission of the
guilt shall not be interpreted in isolation when the rest of
the matter in the representations suggests the contra; one
has to gather a holistic impression from reading the entire
text and not a few sporadic sentences appearing here &
there in a script, whilst considering if what is stated
amounts to admission. An acclaimed jurist of yester
decades Mr.Rupert Cross in his treatise ‘EVIDENCE’, (3rd
Edn. London- Butterworks 1967) at page 433 states: “An
admission being any statement … which is adverse to a
party’s case, the only conditions of admissibility, when the
statement emanates from the party himself concern the
capacity in which he is acting and the reception of the
entirety of the statement…”; it is more so when one is
dealing with the educational career of young minds like the
petitioner herein; loose & lavish wording of the
representations, need to be given a due discount; the
respondent –University is not justified in seeking shelter
under a leaking umbrella of a poor student.
g) What intrigues this Court is about the enormity
of unfair treatment which the petitioner was meted out at
the hands of a Law University, in a serious matter like this;
it is anguishing that the University did not afford an
opportunity of personal hearing despite his written
request vide mail of 02.03.2020 at Annexure-R5 to the
S.O.; in Biblical literature, even God is said to have given
an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing
them for consuming the proscribed fruit, in the Eden
Garden; which heavens would have fallen down, had a
reasonable opportunity of personal hearing been afforded,
remains as a mystery rapped in enigma; after all,
procedural fairness is a constitutional mandate when the
answering respondent is an instrumentality of the “State”
under Article 12 of the Constitution; it is high time that
this University of national repute be reminded that it is
dealing with our children and not others’ chattel; and,
h) The last contention of the learned counsel for the
University that it has shown leniency in not taking a
stringent action for the act of plagiarism and therefore its
action in not awarding any mark to the project work of the
petitioner cannot be faltered, is difficult to agree with; the
punitive action of not awarding any mark to the project
work itself is founded on the wrongly assumed admission
of guilt, when the mails of the petitioner show the contrary,
as already discussed above; no Regulation nor Ruling is
cited at the Bar which authorizes zeroing of a toiled
student’s performance value sans a finding of guilt arrived
after holding a due enquiry when the charge is apparently
serious; added to this, the University has not articulated
the principles on which a charge of plagiarism is to be
founded; there is absolutely no justification for not holding
even a preliminary enquiry; since the matter is being
decided on merits after a lengthy hearing, it is not
desirable to remit the same for reconsideration at the
hands of the University, much water having flowed under
the bridges, by now.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition
succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the
impugned orders at Annexures-H & L1; a Writ of
Mandamus issues to the respondent-University to assess
and award marks to the petitioner’s Project Work in
question; petitioner shall be continued to keep the term by
way of carry over/carry forward, disregarding the
attendance shortage, if any.
No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment