Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 22 (MAN)

KHAIDEM JACKO MEITEI v. UNION OF INDIA

2018-05-22

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Hyungyo Zingkhei, learned counsel; Mr. A. Bimol, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sasi, learned counsel; Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel and Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG for the Respondents. 2. The present PIL has been filed seeking for a direction, inter alia, to make an enquiry into the irregularities in Ph.D. theses which were undertaken by Research Scholars under the supervision of the Respondent no. 4 in the Department of Hindi, Manipur University alleging that there had been large scale plagiarism. It is alleged that the petitioner came across certain news item widely published in a local news daily dated 25.01.2013 wherein it was reported that there had been large scale replication of thesis in the Manipur University. Thereafter, the petitioner made certain enquiry on his own from the library of the Manipur University whereupon it was found that many candidates who had undergone Ph.D. courses under the supervision of the Respondent no. 4 had copied from the research work already undertaken by one Dinanath Singh under the supervision of Prof. Jawahar Singh in the year 1997 on the topic "Shivprasad Singh Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhyayan". It was alleged that some of the contents and names of the theses were similar except that the name of the authors were different. The petitioner has catalogued such works of plagiarism in para No. 4 of the PIL, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below: "4. That, the petitioner feeling disturbed of the news item started following up what was happening and how far the said news item was true. As such the petitioner started visiting the library of the Manipur University and started looking for those theses submitted by the candidates who had done their research work under the supervision of respondent No. 4. The petitioner selected four theses which reflect the same topic but mere changes in the name of the author to understand how the candidates were during their Ph.D under the supervision of respondent No. 4 and also the research work done by Dinanath under the supervision of Prof. Jawahar Singh in the year 1997 of the same topic with different author. Jawahar Singh in the year 1997 of the same topic with different author. The similarities of topics and the plagiarism are as follows: (A) Topics of the theses are on similar lines except the name of the writer selected for research is changed (i) Bheeshma Sahani Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, Ph.D.Reg.No. nil, submitted in the year 2001. Manipur University, Library No.2159/SW. (ii) Kamleshwar Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, Ph.D.Reg.No. 1575/2001, submitted in the year 2005. Manipur University, Library No.2688/SW. (iii) Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan. Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008. Manipur University, Library No.3012/SW. (iv) Mannu Bhandaree Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, Ph.D.Reg.No.2127/05, submitted in the year 2009. Manipur University, Library No.3047/SW. (v) Shivprasad Singh Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan submitted in the year 1997, Manipur University, Library No.1863. True copies of the topics of the research works are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/3(colly). (B) The contents/synopsis of two theses are exactly the same. True copies of the contents of the research works are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/4(colly). (C) The research scholars have copied huge chunks of subject matter from each other theses. True copies of the theses which are found to have been copied from each other theses are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/5(colly). (D) The same matters have been used in two different pages of the same thesis. True copies of the two different pages of the same thesis containing same matters are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/6(colly). (E) In the theses, Kamleshwar Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. 1575/2001, submitted in the year 2005), Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, (Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008) and Mannu Bhandaree Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No.2127/05, submitted in the year 2009). Huge chunks of matter have been copied in conclusion from each other theses. True copies of the theses which are found to have been copied are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P/7(colly). (F) On page no.153 in the thesis Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, (Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008), a quotation from TAMAS and on page no.160 a quotation from KUNTO (both are novels by Bheeshma Sahani) have been used with no justification and which is absolutely out of context. (F) On page no.153 in the thesis Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, (Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008), a quotation from TAMAS and on page no.160 a quotation from KUNTO (both are novels by Bheeshma Sahani) have been used with no justification and which is absolutely out of context. In fact, this quotation have been copied blindly from another theses Bheeshma Sahani Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. nil, submitted in the year 2001) prepared under the supervision of the same supervisor i.e. the respondent no.4. True copies of the theses of the research works which have been blindly copied are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/8(colly). (G) On page no.168 in the same thesis Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, (Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008), a character, Ltra Bachane Wala Gareeb Musalaman is quoted. This is originally a character of TAMAS (a novel by Bheeshma Sahani), which does not have any connection with the present theses. The referred character has been picked up from a thesis, Bheeshma Sahanl Ke Upanyason Samaj Shastrly Adhayan, Ph.D.Reg.no. nill, submitted in the year 2001 prepared under the supervision of the respondent no. 4 who is the same supervisor. True copies of the theses of the research works which have been blindly copied are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/9(colly). (H) In the thesis, Mannu Bhandaree Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No.2127/o5, submitted in the year 2009), name of the second chapter in the contents is given as Mannu Bhandaree Ka Jeevan Evam Rachanakriti, but in the main body of the thesis on page no. 29 the same is given as Mannu Bhandaree Ke Jeevan Vritt Evam Samajik Sahityik Parivesh. The same thing is found in the thesis, Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, (Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008). The supervisor of both the theses is the respondent no. 4 and in both the theses even the mistake/wrong are similar. True copies of the theses wherein the mistake/wrong are similar are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P/10(colly). The supervisor of both the theses is the respondent no. 4 and in both the theses even the mistake/wrong are similar. True copies of the theses wherein the mistake/wrong are similar are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P/10(colly). (I) in the thesis, Kamleshwar Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. 1575/2001, submitted in the year 2005) huge chunks of matter has been copied in PREFACE from the thesis, Bheeshma Sahani Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. nil, submitted in the year 2001) and the supervisor of both the theses is the respondent no. 4. True copies of the preface of the theses are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/11(colly). (J) In the thesis, Kamleshwar Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. 1575/2001, submitted in the year 2005), the first chapter contains only 21 (Twenty One) pages and the referred whole chapter is a copied work from the thesis, Bheeshma Sahani Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. nil, submitted in the year 2001) and Shivprasad Singh Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayan, prepared by Mr. Dinanath Singh, submitted in the year 1997 to the same University under supervision of Prof. Jawahar Singh of the same department. The thesis, Bheeshma Sahani Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. nil, submitted in the year 2001) which has been done under the supervision of respondent no. 4 has also been copied from SHIVPRASAD SINGH KE UPANYASON KA SAMAJ SHASTRIYA ADHAYAN prepared by Mr. Dinanath Singh, submitted in the year 1997 to the same University under supervision of Prof. Jawahar Singh of the same department. True copies of the theses of the research works under the supervision of Prof. Jawahar Singh and under respondent no. 4 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/12(colly). (K) The respondent no. 4, being the supervisor of all the four above referred Ph.D theses has issued certificates to all these research works and has shown them as the original work of the Research-scholars. True copies of the certificate in all the four theses are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/13(colly). 4 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/12(colly). (K) The respondent no. 4, being the supervisor of all the four above referred Ph.D theses has issued certificates to all these research works and has shown them as the original work of the Research-scholars. True copies of the certificate in all the four theses are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/13(colly). (L) Number of pages found to be copied in its of the theses are: (i) Bheeshma Sahani Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. nil, submitted in the year 2001)- Total pages in the theses: 179 No. of pages copied: 17 (ii) Kamleshwar Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No. 1575/2001, submitted in the year 2005)- Total pages in the theses: 360 No. of pages copied: 86 (iii) Abdul Bismillah Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan, (Ph.D.Reg.No.2126/05, submitted in the year 2008)- Total pages in the theses: 208 No. of pages copied: 97 (iv) Mannu Bhandaree Ke Upanyason Ka Samaj Shastriya Adhayayan (Ph.D.Reg.No.2127/05, submitted in the year 2009)- Total pages in the theses: 189 No. of pages copied: 60 It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has indicated only those pages which have been found to be copied by the research scholars from each other theses and it is yet to be confirm or verify as to how many pages have been copied from other sources." 3. Thus, the gravamen of the allegations of the petitioner is that the research scholars who had undertaken/completed Ph.D courses under the Respondent No. 4 had resorted to large scale of plagiarism of an earlier thesis submitted by a Ph.D scholar under the Manipur University. 4. The respondent no. 2, University Grant Commission, has filed a short affidavit in which it has been acknowledged by the Respondent no. 2 (UGC) that they had received complaints from certain students organizations upon which the office of the Respondent no. 2 wrote to the Registrar of the Manipur University on 30.01.2013 and 17.02.2014 to take up appropriate actions as per rules and intimate the Respondent no. 2 of any action taken in that regard. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 2 however, did not receive any response from the University authority in this regard. It has been also stated the respondent no. 3, the Manipur University is the appropriate authority to take necessary action relating to the allegations made in the petition. 2 of any action taken in that regard. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 2 however, did not receive any response from the University authority in this regard. It has been also stated the respondent no. 3, the Manipur University is the appropriate authority to take necessary action relating to the allegations made in the petition. The aforesaid stand of the UGC is contained in para No. 4 and 5 of their affidavit and being relevant are reproduced herein below :- "4. That with reference to the contentions and allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 4 to 10 of his petition, it is respectfully to state that the respondent No. 3 and 4 are the best persons to give appropriate answers to such contentions and allegations. However, it is humbly stated that the answering respondent received complaints from All Tribal Students Union Manipur and Save Education Group in connection with the subject matter of the present PIL and accordingly the Respondent No. 2 has wrote letters letter bearing No. F.No.35-19/2012(CU) dated 31-01-2013 and 17- 02-2014 to the Registrar of Manipur University requesting the later to take appropriate action as per rules on the subject as early as possible and to intimate to the Respondent No. 2 any action taken in that regard. However, the answering respondent did not receive any response from the respondent No. 3 till date. A true copy each of the letter dated 31- 01-2013 and 17-02-2014 from UGC to MU is attached hereto as ANNEXURE R/1 (colly). 5. That with reference to paragraphs No. 11 to 14 of the said petition, the answering respondent has nothing to comment. The respondent No. 3 is the appropriate authority to take appropriate action in connection with the allegations and contentions made in the said paragraphs." 5. The respondent No. 4 also has filed her affidavit-in-opposition opposing the PIL filed by the petitioner contending that the present petition does not come under the purview of PIL. It has been also contended that the petitioner has no locus standii to file this petition. It is also contended that it is not shown as to how the petitioner has knowledge of Hindi as the entire allegations of the petitioner pertain to works done in Hindi language and the PIL has been filed without providing the English translation of the documents written in Hindi language. It is also contended that it is not shown as to how the petitioner has knowledge of Hindi as the entire allegations of the petitioner pertain to works done in Hindi language and the PIL has been filed without providing the English translation of the documents written in Hindi language. The respondent No. 4 has vehemently objected to the allegation that under her guidance many Ph.D students/scholars had resorted to plagiarism. It has been contended that if any of the candidates had committed the act of plagiarism, such act is attributable to the candidate concerned and not to the guide and none of the Ph.D students/scholars against whom allegations have been made of plagiarism had been made party in the present proceedings and as such the present petition also suffers from non joinder of necessary parties. It has been further contended that grant of Ph.D Degree to the 4(four) persons named in the petition was done after their works were examined by the concerned committees/experts in terms of the Manipur University Ph.D Regulations (Redrafted) 2001 and other relevant rules. The respondent no. 4 also stated that mere use of certain ideas does not amount to plagiarism and the use of similar materials in the form of words or sentences or paragraphs intermingling with original works cannot be said to constitute to be "copying". 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we are of the view that if plagiarism as alleged by the petitioner is indeed correct, especially in the research works undertaken, it is a matter of serious concern. Plagiarism is one of the facets of violation of copyright. Various legal systems all over the world have provided mechanisms to prevent violation of copyright including plagiarism. The progress of humanity has been mainly possible through creative, innovative and revolutionary ideas. Copying or plagiarism is an anathema to creativity and invention. While new ideas can be developed upon earlier ideas, it is the creative/new ideas which propel the march of human civilization. It is in this context, that the issue of plagiarism which has affected many of the research institutions has been taken seriously by most of the developed societies and there cannot be any lenient approach to this malice. Academic institutions like Manipur University are not mere seat of learning but where creative ideas are encouraged and shaped. It is in this context, that the issue of plagiarism which has affected many of the research institutions has been taken seriously by most of the developed societies and there cannot be any lenient approach to this malice. Academic institutions like Manipur University are not mere seat of learning but where creative ideas are encouraged and shaped. Therefore, in view of the seriousness of the issue involved, we are not keen to entertain the technical plea taken by the Respondent No. 4 that the present PIL is not maintainable. 7. In India the settled law is that while there cannot be any copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of idea by the author of the copyrighted work. While commonalities and similarities in the development of an idea are bound to occur in any creative work, but if the later work is a literal imitation of the copyrighted work it would amount to violation of the copyright. The law relating to copyright has been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films and Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 118 . It has been laid down in para no. 46 thereof as follows:- "46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge: 1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work. 2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. 3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to seeing the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises. 5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence. 6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above. 7. ............................................................................................... ................................................................................................." 8. One may also refer to the decision in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Nodak, (2008)1 SCC 1 where the law relating to copyright has been discussed. 9. From the pleadings on record, we are of the view that this is an issue which can be examined first with the assistance of the experts, keeping in mind the relevant law governing the field as it will involve appreciation of the comparative works. We are of the opinion that it is the Manipur University which is primarily responsible for maintaining academic discipline and quality, and it is the most appropriate authority to make necessary enquiry into the allegation of plagiarism adopted by the students/scholars while undergoing course in Ph.D, and thereafter take appropriate actions in this regard. We accordingly direct so. We are of the opinion that it is the Manipur University which is primarily responsible for maintaining academic discipline and quality, and it is the most appropriate authority to make necessary enquiry into the allegation of plagiarism adopted by the students/scholars while undergoing course in Ph.D, and thereafter take appropriate actions in this regard. We accordingly direct so. It also goes without saying that while conducting such an enquiry, experts having knowledge in the subject of Hindi have to be involved. 10. Accordingly, the present PIL is disposed of with the direction to the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University to cause an enquiry by constituting a committee to look into the allegations of plagiarism, made by the petitioner more particularly, with reference to the allegations made in para no. 4 of the PIL as quoted above, and take appropriate actions against the concerned persons as per rules, which exercise may be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from today.