Central Information Commission
Prashant Kumar Sinha vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 19 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Phone: 011- 26181927 | Fax: 011- 26185088
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/MP/C/2015/000281
Prashant Kumar Sinha v. PIO, Indian Statistical Institute
RTI : 01.10.2015
FAO : Nil
Second Appeal : 09.12.2015
Hearing : 01.06.2017
Complainant : Present
Public authority : Mr. A.K. Biswas, CPIO
Decided on : 19.06.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. This RTI request is based on the allegation by a scholar, of his copyright violation and plagiarism by his own professor and another scholar. The scholar- appellant has requested information related to Prof. Bhabani Prasad Sinha's initial draft with all the markings along with the evidence of claimed authorship and its date. The Central Information Commission in its order dated 03.07.15 CIC/MP/A/2014/002047 has directed such information to be shared. The CPIO reply stated that the letter by Prof. Sinha sent to the Director, ISI has been already sent to the appellant, but that contains no information sought. The Appellant filed first appeal on 13.10.15, and in absence of response, approached the Commission.
Decision:
2. The scholar-appellant alleged that his dissertation to the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, submitted on 18.07.2005, as part of his M. Tech. Degree, was copied verbatim by Prof. Sinha and was published in Asian Mobile Conference International Journal in January 2006 in the names of Prof. Sinha and another scholar as authors. He has also filed a complaint with the Director of Indian Statistical Institute and Editor of the Journal. He claimed that they gave evasive replies and supported authorship claim of Prof. Sinha, without any basis.
CIC/MP/C/2015/000281 Page 1
3. The CPIO, an administrative officer, has simply passed on the statement of Director stating that the alleged paper was originally published in 2003. This was denied by the appellant. The CPIO also stated that matter was heard by the Commission on 3.07.2015 and the respondent authority has complied with the directions issued by CIC.
4. Appellant contended that the Director has not denied the allegation, does not give name of the original author of the paper published in 2003. If what he said was true, it amounts to copyright violation by both Professor Sinha and the appellant, which should have been inquired into. The Indian Statistical Institute did not inform him whether there was any action or any inquiry upon this complaint. Appellant claimed that his thesis involved his own skill, labour, intelligence, judgment and giving of the original expression of his thoughts (in form of formulas) in a concrete form on that subject, but Prof. Sinha appropriated his literary work and published in his name as author, which amounts to infringement of his copyright.
5. According to the UGC regulations, the Academic Council (or its equivalent body) of the Institution shall evolve a mechanism using well developed software and gadgets to detect plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty. While submitting for evaluation, the dissertation/thesis shall have an undertaking from the research scholar and a certificate from the Research Supervisor attesting to the originality of the work, vouching that there is no plagiarism and that the work has not been submitted for the award of any other degree/diploma of the same Institution where the work was carried out, or to any other Institution. As per these guidelines it is the responsibility of the Academic council to ensure that due diligence is conducted and that there isn't a case of academic dishonesty. In such cases of allegation of misconduct or dishonesty by a professor or a scholar demands appropriate action. Whether ISI has undertaken these measures to prevent this academic misconduct?
6. If the appellant created the work (the paper/thesis), he gets copyright. A copyright is an intangible right granted to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, under which he or she is invested for a limited period with the sole, exclusive privilege of making copies and publishing and CIC/MP/C/2015/000281 Page 2 selling them. Copyright protection automatically exists from the time the work is created in fixed form. There is no requirement that the work be published or registered to obtain protection under copyright law. The copyright of any work immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work, unless it is a work-for-hire, or unless ownership has been assigned by written agreement. Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957 provides for the special rights of an author:
"57. (1) Independently of the author's copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right-
(a) to claim authorship of the work; and
(b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation"
7. Copyright is said to be infringed when a person without any authorisation by the author does an act which only the author/owner is authorised to do, such as making unauthorised copies, distributing copies, performing in public, broadcasting, adapting, etc. The infringement of copyright is explained by the Copyright Act in Section 51:
"When copyright infringed. -Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed-
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act-
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or
(b) when any person-
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or CIC/MP/C/2015/000281 Page 3
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work"
8. If it is proved professor-supervisor has used the work of scholar-appellant, without his authorisation, it amounts to infringement of his copyright besides the academic misconduct by supervisor. Or else, the appellant could be questioned if he copied from 2003 publication as alleged by Director, either way, matter has to be probed. It could be a crime also. The Copyright Act recognises acts of infringements and reserves penalty under its provisions. The section 63 of the Act:
"63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of-
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act, [except the right conferred by section 53A] [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees."
9. When a Professor-guide himself was accused of infringing copyright of a student-scholar, such a scholar has right to complain, right to know and Right to Information about the action on the complaint under RTI Act.
10. The PIO claimed that he was an administrative officer and had nothing to say on academic matters, and thus he simply forwarded whatever the Director gave. The PIO plays a crucial role in making the right to information for the citizens as a reality. He cannot just leave it to the other officers, but decide what information could be given to the appellant. He is not just a despatch clerk or post office. He has to take decision after duly applying his mind. The Act has clearly laid down the duties/obligations of a Public information officer. While Section 20 holds a PIO liable for inaction, the Act envisages the PIO to act in a just and speedy manner, providing accurate information to the applicant in time without discrepancies. Inaction of the PIO CIC/MP/C/2015/000281 Page 4 is an infringement of the Right to Information vested in the citizens of the country.
10. Prevention of misconduct is the general responsibility of the public authority. The Institute should have acted upon the complaint and informed him whether his complaint was considered to be taken up for inquiry or was rejected, if so the reasons thereof; if inquiry was ordered, what is the status of that inquiry. Based on the contentions of the parties the Commission assumes that there is no such inquiry. Hence, the Commission exercising its powers under Section 18(2) of RTI Act, direct the public authority to conduct an inquiry into the matter and send the report to this Commission.
11. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to provide the copy of the 'original' paper allegedly published in 2003, to the appellant along with the statement of the Director of Institute on this subject. The Director is also directed to explain why the ISI should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant who was denied the information sought. All the responses shall reach within 30 days from date of receipt of this order. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Indian Statistical Institute, Barrackpore Trunk Road, Kolkata-700108.
2. Shri Prashant Kumar Sinha, L-164, Sec-25, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.
CIC/MP/C/2015/000281 Page 5